Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CARDIFF CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether, in the present emergency, there has been any relaxation of previous orders under which an Employment Exchange manager would refuse to send an applicant for work for which there were vacancies other than the particular class of employment for which the applicant was registered?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): There has never been any such practice as that suggested by my hon. Friend. The Employment Exchanges have always recorded subsidiary or alternative occupations of applicants in order to submit them for such work where suitable applicants primarily registered for the occupation concerned are not available. Steps are also taken, in consultation with the appropriate employers and trade union representatives, to facilitate the rapid transfer of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers to occupations in accordance with the needs of the war effort.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ALUMINIUM COMPANY, WARRINGTON.

Sir Robert Young: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he is aware that the British Aluminium Company, Warrington, appears to have been the only firm in that area which did not pay more than bare-time wages to their employés who worked on Whit Monday; whether he can state the reason for the employers' action, seeing they are on Government work; and whether, to prevent discontent among workpeople, the firm will be instructed to comply with trade-union conditions covering holiday periods?

Mr. Assheton: I understand that the company wished to keep in line with the arrangements made in industry generally and, now that the position in this respect is clear, they have arranged to pay, on the next pay day, overtime rates at time and a half to those who worked on Whit Monday at these rolling mills.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARLESTOWN INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY.

Sir R. Young: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he has considered the complaints of the Earlestown Industrial Co-operative Society regarding some of their employés leaving without notice, and the interference with adequate coal supplies to its members; and, seeing that the people complained of have been engaged by a neighbouring factory, and that this factory is regarded by many employers of labour as a place where many men seek employment to escape military service, and that in some cases skilled men are employed in an unskilled or semi-skilled capacity at greatly enhanced wages, whether he will say what has been done to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Assheton: I understand that the complaint refers to engagement of workers for building and constructional work on a new Government factory. In future, engagement of labour on this contract, as in building work generally, will be regulated under the Undertakings (Restriction on Engagement) Order made on Monday last.

Sir R. Young: Have any investigations been made into this particular place as to the employment of skilled and semiskilled men under certain conditions?

Mr. Assheton: I think that is another question.

WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether the jurisdiction of the welfare committee, appointed by him to look after the interests of munition workers, extends to Scotland; and, if so, how many Scottish representatives are members of the central committee?

Mr. Assheton: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." As regards the second part, appointments were not made on a territorial basis.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this continual centralisation is arousing feeling that will be detrimental to the schemes of the Ministry?

Mr. Assheton: I am sure that the Scottish trade unionists are doing all they can to assist my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Davidson: Yes, but they do not like to be trampled on.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether the welfare committee recently set up is expected to concern itself with the welfare of young people outside factory hours?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir, the scope of the Factory and Welfare Advisory Board covers the question of welfare arrangements both inside and outside the factories. In so far as young people are concerned, the Board will maintain close contact with the Board of Education and the National Youth Committee to ensure co-ordination of policy and action.

Mr. Denman: Will the Ministry also keep in close touch with the Ministries of Supply and of Aircraft Production who are interested in this problem?

Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: Can the hon. Gentleman say, in order to carry out this welfare work what contacts have been made in the North of England and Scotland by this Welfare Board?

Mr. Assheton: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS'HOLIDAYS.

Major Sir George Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a further statement with regard to the arrangement of holidays?

Mr. Assheton: The Government have asked for a general cancellation or postponement of holidays during this period of crisis in order that there may be no interference with the production of munitions and that transport should be left free as far as possible for the needs of evacuation and Civil Defence. The response has been magnificent and production has been greatly accelerated. But we must beware of any slackening of momentum. As far as is humanly possible we must for some time to come continue at the same high pressure the output of urgent war requirements of every kind. It must be recognised that seven day working without adequate periods of rest for individuals is not an efficient method of production if continued for any length of time. Periodical rest periods for individuals are necessary even on urgent priority work, if output is to be maintained at the highest level. Arrangements should be made to provide such rest periods and they should include the building up as quickly as possible of a staff which will allow one day's rest periodically for the personnel. The details of the arrangements that may be practicable will vary from industry to industry; the managements of the various plants and the associations of employers and workers should set themselves at once to the immediate solution of this problem.
As regards holidays, the cancellation or suspension of complete stoppages must hold good. This will apply not only to holidays extending over several days but also to day holidays such as the August Bank Holiday, which it is proposed to cancel by Defence Regulation, and other one-day holidays. When it is the practice for holidays to be taken in rotation by individuals and thus to be spread over a period of months, it should be considered whether they would interfere in any way with urgent war requirements or with other urgent requirements for transport or other essential services. If they would so interfere, they should not be taken now. When this is not so, however, it will in most cases be better that


they should be taken as arranged. Those spending holidays in the country who are able to help in work on the land are urged to make inquiries locally whether their services can be used in this way.
In trades covered by the Trade Boards Acts, agriculture and the road haulage industry there is a legal obligation to give an annual holiday in certain cases within specified months of the year. Steps will be taken so far as necessary to extend the period within which such holidays must be given or otherwise to adjust the legal obligation to the needs of the situation. Questions will arise as to the rate of wages for work done on days that would ordinarily be holidays. It is the view of the Government that such questions should be settled in accordance with any provisions in agreements relating to this matter.

Sir Herbert Williams: Are the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend taking careful note of reports of the Health of Munition Workers Committees and other committees as to the adverse effect on output of excessive overtime, and will the utmost care be taken to ensure that abnormal overtime does not lead to a reduction in output instead of an increase?

Mr. Assheton: The maximum output is that which the Government seek to obtain.

Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a plain question, as to whether his Department are considering the well-established fact that excessive overtime produces a reduction instead of an increase?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has had his answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY ACT RESTRICTIONS.

Sir H. Williams: (for Mr. Levy) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in cases where employment of youths and girls on war work is being impeded by any continuing regulations concerning overtime and night work, what is being done to relax such restrictions?

Mr. Assheton: In order to meet the special circumstances existing in industry during the last few weeks, relaxations of the Factory Act restrictions on the hours of women and young persons have been

allowed in a considerable number of cases. Relaxations are only granted upon application by a firm to the local factory inspector, who, in considering the needs of the case, is required to take into account the safety and health of the workpeople concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT, DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. Batey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he can state the number of persons unemployed on the latest available date in the county of Durham, and the number of such persons classified as miners?

Mr. Assheton: At 20th May, 1940, the total number of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the county of Durham was 49,600. Among insured persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry, the number recorded as unemployed in the county at that date was 5,799.

Mr. Batey: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that 49,000 unemployed today is an enormous number? Is any special effort being made to reduce this number?

Mr. Assheton: I think the House has already been informed that arrangements are now being made by which the register is being carefully examined with the assistance of employers and representatives of the trade unions in each area.

Mr. Shinwell: If work cannot be found in the mines for these 5,700 miners who are unemployed, is it not possible to find alternative work of national importance, such as digging trenches or other work?

Mr. Assheton: All those who are without work in the mines are certainly needed, and I hope that arrangements will be made to transfer them to places where there is work for them.

Mr. Batey: Are we to understand that these 5,700 men are not fit to work in the mines and that that is the reason why they are not there?

Mr. Assheton: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Shinwell: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he hoped work would be found, but can he give us some assurance that work will be found?

Mr. Assheton: We are doing it as fast as we can.

Mr. Batey: And that is not very fast.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (BRITISH CITIZENS ABROAD).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether British citizens of military age, such as Mr. W. H. Auden and Mr. Christopher Isherwood, who have gone to the United States and expressed their determination not to return to this country until war is over, will be summoned back for registration and calling up, in view of the fact that they are seeking refuge abroad?

Mr. Assheton: I have no information with regard to Mr. Isherwood. Mr. Austin gave an undertaking before leaving the country that he would return if called upon to do so; he is outside the age groups so far required to register under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order. There is no mention of Mr. Austin in this Question.

Sir J. Lucas: Is my hon. Friend aware of the indignation caused by young men leaving the country and saying that they will not fight? If they are not registered as conscientious objectors will he see that they lose their citizenship?

Mr. Assheton: No exit permits would be issued by the Home Office now.

Mr. Cocks: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to deprive these people of British nationality?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY CAMPS.

Sir R. Young: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he is aware that a conscientious objector before the Bristol Tribunal stated that he was employed at a military camp for nine weeks, during which time he did not do any work; whether the foreman at the camp referred to will be penalised and the employing firm will be surcharged the amounts paid to this man, seeing that these camps are built under contract to the War Office; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made to find out how many other workers were employed and paid in the same way?

Mr. Assheton: I am taking steps to ascertain what statement was made to the tribunal and will bring it to the notice of the Department which appears to be concerned.

Sir R. Young: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this is an instance typical of many cases?

Oral Answers to Questions — AREA CONTROL BOARDS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he will make a statement on the relations between the new area control boards and the area advisory committees set up under the Ministry of Supply by the previous Government, and now taken over by his Department?

Mr. Assheton: The functions of these committees under the new arrangements are being discussed urgently with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and the industrial organisations concerned.

Mr. Cocks: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the old area committees were extremely unsatisfactory, being very largely window-dressing, and will he give an assurance that the new boards will work more vigorously?

Mr. Assheton: There is every intention that they shall work as vigorously as possible.

Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman say what will be the duties of the new boards?

Mr. Assheton: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL REGISTER.

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he has any statement to make in respect of the reorganisation of the Central Register?

Mr. Assheton: Certain changes in the organisation of the Central Register have recently been made; other changes are under consideration consequent on the passing of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act and Orders made there-under, but I am not yet in a position to state their nature.

Mr. Davidson: When will the Minister be in a position to state their nature?

Mr. Assheton: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether steel helmets have been issued to all air-raid precautions wardens?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): Issues have been made to local authorities sufficient for their full authorised establishments of wardens.

NORTHERN IRELAND—EIRE BOUNDARY.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether, in addition to the control now being exercised over the traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, steps will be taken to impose a strict supervision and control of the frontier between Northern Ireland and Eire?

Sir J. Anderson: Any control which can be exercised over the land boundary would not dispense with the need for a control over the traffic from Northern Ireland to Great Britain: and it is by means of such a control that safeguards can be most effectively maintained.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people can pass freely over the country roads between Eire and Northern Ireland; and, in view of the importance of certain centres of Northern Ireland in our scheme of national Defence, will he introduce control over the whole border?

Sir J. Anderson: There is control over the whole border. The House must realise that control over a land frontier must always present more difficulty in practice than control upon the sea.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only control which at present exists is a Customs control? There is no control over aliens.

Sir J. Anderson: I should hesitate to express any view in conflict with that of my right hon. Friend. If he will communicate with me, I will see whether, in

consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland, any further measures can be adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PROTECTION).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that papers found on German parachutists in Holland contained lists of people who were to be shot on sight; and whether, seeing that in the event of an invasion, Members of Parliament falling into enemy hands would probably be the first to be killed, he will consider issuing revolvers or other weapons to Members in order that they may be in a position to sell their lives as dearly as possible?

Sir J. Anderson: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view, I am afraid there would be many objections to such a proposal, including the objection that a distinction could not properly be drawn in this respect between Members of Parliament and many other civilians.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in such circumstances Ministers would be protected by an armed guard, whereas back-benchers would be shot? Will he not, therefore, consider either doing what I suggest or releasing arms to those Members willing to pay for them?

Sir Joseph Lamb: Might not the explanation of the difference in the position between Ministers and back-benchers be that Ministers might require further protection?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that these matters can, with advantage, be discussed further on this occasion.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May we carry revolvers if we possess them?

Mr. Cocks: If a Member of Parliament meets a parachutist, is he not entitled to a Supplementary Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — RECRUITMENT OF VOLUNTEERS.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the resolution adopted by the emergency committee of the Birmingham City Council deploring the waste of time and labour in repeated appeals for recruits for Civil Defence organisation, and urging that measures for compulsory service for Civil Defence duties should


be introduced immediately for all suitable persons of both sexes; and whether action is contemplated in response to this suggestion?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made yesterday in the course of the Debate on Civil Defence.

Sir P. Hannon: Would it not be better to tackle this question seriously instead of adopting this piecemeal method of getting volunteers? Would it not be better to do what really ought to be done to get the whole country organised?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot think that my hon. Friend read what I said last night on that subject.

Sir P. Hannon: Yes, I did.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the Home Secretary aware that the appeal made for recruits last Saturday and Sunday has not been by any means satisfactory?

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATMENT OF ALIENS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he is aware that his instruction to local authorities to dismiss French, in common with other aliens engaged on air-raid precautions duties, has caused indignation; and whether he will withdraw it;
(2) whether he is aware that the application of curfew and other orders, regarding aliens, to Frenchmen living in this country has caused indignation; and whether he has any statement to make?

Sir J. Anderson: I have recently made Orders the effect of which is to exempt French citizens from the "curfew," the restrictions on the possession and use of bicycles, motor cars, cameras, field-glasses, etc., and the restrictions relating to the entry and residence of aliens in areas declared to be aliens' protected areas. In view of these Orders, I am giving immediate consideration to the position of French subjects in relation to the Civil Defence Services.

Mr. Keeling: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is extremely regrettable that Frenchmen were ever put upon the same footing as other aliens in this matter; and can he say when he expects to deal with the question of their dismissal from air-raid precautions duties?

Sir J. Anderson: It is being dealt with now.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman extend these facilities to Americans, many of whom are in the country and want to help in agriculture and in other ways?

Sir J. Anderson: The restrictions that were placed upon aliens in certain areas of the country were placed upon those aliens at the urgent request of the military authorities, and it is not possible to differentiate nicely between one category of aliens and another. In regard to French citizens, the action recently taken was taken in consideration of the reciprocal action on the part of the French Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROTECTION AGAINST LIQUID GASES (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the advertisements, appealing specially to women, of Benin products, claiming that they are a protection against mustard and other liquid gases if applied beforehand and an antidote if applied after contamination and that leading authorities are agreed as to their vital importance; and whether these products have been examined with a view to prohibiting advertisements making false claims?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir; and the matter has already been receiving the careful attention of my Department. A sample of the cream mentioned in the advertisement has been tested by my expert advisers and it was found that the claims made for it could not be substantiated. The claims made in the advertisement are unwarranted, and in fact tests show that this product is not so good as bleach paste for treating the human skin after contamination with liquid mustard gas. I am considering what is the best method of keeping a check on the publication of advertisements making claims in respect of A.R.P. devices or methods of treatment

Mr. Keeling: Has my right hon. Friend anything to say on the specific criticisms of bleach in the advertisement?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. The use of bleach in the manner officially recommended has proved completely safe and efficient in every way. The test carried


out by my advisers proved that bleach paste is a more effective method of dealing with human skin after contamination with liquid mustard gas than this specific which is advertised.

Mr. Garro Jones: How long does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate it will take for him to put a stop to these statements depreciating the use of officially recommended material and extolling the use of material that is of no use; and will he put an effective stop to it?

Sir J. Anderson: I am consulting my legal advisers upon it now.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account some of the products, supposed to be paint, which it is said will prevent glass being broken, and which, I think, comes in the same category?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNED GERMAN REFUGEES.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary whether German refugees living in this country, pending immigration to the United States of America, and who have now been interned, will be released as soon as their place on the immigration register has been reached?

Sir J. Anderson: I propose to continue the present policy of releasing interned refugees when all arrangements for their emigration to the United States or elsewhere have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUATION.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to transfer all London children from districts where many of them are now staying and whence the local children are being evacuated?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Save in a very few cases where parents have urged that their children should not be moved, there are no evacuated London children of school age left in areas from which the local children are being evacuated under Government schemes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC SHELTERS.

Sir H. Williams: (for Mr. Levy) asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that local authorities are providing public shelters where they are necessary; and whether he proposes to

take further power to compel local authorities to carry out their obligations in this respect if necessary?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made yesterday in the course of the Debate on Civil Defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (RACE MEETINGS).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Home Secretary whether he considers that horse racing and similar sports which employ a large number of people directly and indirectly should be allowed to continue during the present critical times; and is he prepared to stop these meetings?

Sir J. Anderson: The Government's views regarding the continuance of race meetings and other forms of recreation were indicated in the reply which I gave on 30th May to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). I stated then that the Government would not hesitate to impose on public entertainments such further restrictions as circumstances might warrant; and arrangements have recently been made for a further curtailment of the horse racing programme, which had already been greatly reduced, and also for the restriction of greyhound racing meetings, so that they will not be held at times which interfere with working hours.

Mr. Higgs: Is not the Minister aware that his reply of 30th May referred specifically to dog racing and that the only part of the Question to which he replied was the suggestion that racing news should not be broadcast? Is he aware of the growing indignation among industrial workers at this type of sport being allowed to continue in the present strenuous times?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon 30,000 or 40,000 people are attending dog race meetings, at a time when Paris is fighting for its very life?

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Oxford Street yesterday there were boards chalked with details of Derby betting, and alongside of them another saying, "Paris a besieged city"? Does not that offend against decency?

Earl Winterton: Did not the racing correspondents say about the Derby yesterday that thousands and thousands of motor cars were parked at New market?

Sir J. Anderson: I quite recognise the strength of the feeling on this matter. On the other hand, as I indicated in my previous reply of 30th May, it is necessary to give consideration to the forms of relaxation available to the workers. In this matter I have been acting in very close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I propose to continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — JANUARY CLUB.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether he will make inquiries with regard to the January Club, founded in London in 1934, with pro-Nazi objects, and having as its foundation members several British subjects now interned?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that this body ceased to exist several years ago.

Mr. Mander: Will the Home Secretary allow me to pass to him a list of the 142 foundation members of this Fascist body, which contains the names of Members of both Houses of Parliament, including one Member of the late Government? Will he keep careful watch on these people?

Sir J. Anderson: I am well aware of the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL AGAINST EUROPEAN COMMITMENTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary what action he proposes to take with reference to a body calling itself The British Council against European Commitments, formed in 1938, having amongst its listed speakers persons who are now interned, and of which the secretary was John Beckett?

Sir J. Anderson: The only answer which I can give to questions about particular organisations of this character is that it would not be right for me to make statements in advance as to what action it may be my duty to take.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to bear in mind that one of the principal speakers for this organisation was Lord Haw-Haw?

Oral Answers to Questions — DETENTION OF A MEMBER.

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Home Secretary if he can now say when he will be in a position to make his report on the result of the appeal by the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) to the Advisory Committee?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. This matter will be dealt with as early as possible, but I am not at present in a position to indicate a date.

Captain Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend tell us the names of the people who serve on this Advisory Committee; and will he explain the delay in the hearing of this appeal, seeing that he has been able to deal with tens of thousands of enemy aliens? Does he recognise that while the hon. and gallant Member is in prison, a great Scottish constituency is unrepresented in this House?

Sir J. Anderson: The Advisory Committee, which is presided over by Mr. Norman Birkett, is an entirely different body from the regional committees set up all over the country. The composition of this Advisory Committee was made public some time ago. As regards the substance of the Question, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the delay has not been due to any fault or negligence on the part of the Committee. It has been due to the fact that there is a vast mass of documentary material which has to be very carefully examined.

Captain Shaw: Has any charge been preferred against the hon. and gallant Member, and, if so, will the particulars of such charge be given to him?

Mr. Thorne: If he had not done wrong, he would not have got "pinched."

Sir J. Anderson: No specific charge has been preferred against the hon. and gallant Member. I have explained, on more than one occasion in this House, that in the case of a person detained under Regulation 18B, the obligation rests upon the chairman of the Advisory Committee to see that the person is furnished with full information, to enable him to put whatever case he desires to put for consideration properly before the Committee.

Captain Shaw: Has the hon. and gallant Member been furnished with any particulars?

Mr. Maxton: Does the vast mass of documentary evidence referred to by the Home Secretary deal specifically with the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles?

Sir J. Anderson: It all relates to that case.

Mr. Maxton: Is that examination being done by the Advisory Committee or by the Home Office?

Sir J. Anderson: It is being done, in the first instance, by the security services; and the material will be placed before the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Maxton: Would it not have been the correct thing to have examined the evidence of the security services before the arrest was made?

Sir J. Anderson: Such arrests are made as a matter of precaution. Any questions which may be put with regard to the propriety of the action taken, would, I think, be better put after the event.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Education what steps are taken by his Department to prevent the employment of elementary school children, especially in agricultural areas?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I assume that local education authorities are aware of and observe the statutory provisions relating to the employment of school children. In a few cases authorities have asked whether children could be released from attendance at school before they attain the school-leaving age in order that they may assist in agricultural work. They have been informed that this would be contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Authorities' School Attendance By-laws.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not advisable that they should make hay while the sun shines?

Sir J. Lamb: Can the Minister say what provision is being made for labour other than this in certain areas where it does not exist at the present time?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is quite another question.

Mr. Denville: Is it not the fact that there is a war on at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK INFECTION (PROTECTION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that tubercle bacilli and other pathogenic organisms found in untreated, non-designated milk render it unsafe for human consumption; and what remedial measures does he propose?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am aware of the problems presented by the liability of milk to infection, and, recognising the value of pasteurisation as a protection against such risks, I am considering what action I can take to secure the best results from its use. The hon. Member will appreciate the practical difficulties, particularly those of securing further pasteurising plant, involved in present circumstances, but I can assure him that when conditions permit, I should not hesitate to seek any powers that might be necessary and capable of general application to secure the adequate protection of the public health.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate getting these powers so that they will coincide with the provision of free milk for the public?

Mr. MacDonald: I have indicated that the main difficulty is in getting additional plant in present circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Health the amount of supplementary old age pension that will be paid where a wife 66 years of age has been refused a pension, but her husband is in receipt of 10s. old age pension and 24s. from the public assistance committee?

Mr. M. MacDonald: It is not possible, in the absence of full details, to say what the amount of a supplementary pension


would be in a particular case, but, as I stated in the course of the Debate on the Regulations, no pensioner who was in receipt of outdoor relief immediately before 3rd August will receive less by way of a supplementary pension, unless his circumstances have changed or there is something quite exceptional about the case.

Mr. Batey: Do I understand the Minister to say that they will receive not less than they are now receiving?

Mr. MacDonald: Not less, except in the cases I have mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPWRECKED CREWS.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health what authority is responsible for the immediate provision of clothes and amenities for shipwrecked crews either of the Navy or the Mercantile Marine; and, in particular, who should have secured these for shipwrecked sailors landed at an East Coast port on 18th May?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 29th February to my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). As regards naval crews, I understand that in practice the local naval officer in charge makes the necessary provision, and I am informed by those responsible that in the particular case to which the hon. Member refers the naval officer in charge took immediate and effective steps to care for the survivors.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLOOD DONORS.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the issue of a badge which could be worn by all blood donors at the present time, to indicate this form of public service?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I fully recognise the value of the public service rendered by blood donors, but I do not consider that the issue of a badge is required in this case. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are many forms of national service for which badges are not issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNICIPAL HOUSES (POULTRY KEEPING).

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Mander: —To ask the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mr. G. J. Broadhead, 5, St. Giles Road, Wolverhampton, is being evicted from his house by the Wolverhampton Borough Council for keeping fowls in breach of a term of the tenancy agreement; that Mr. Broadhead has resided there 14 years and recently responded to the Government's appeal to produce more food by making arrangements to keep fowls; that he only desires to do so for the emergency period of the war; that other tenants are in exactly the same position; and whether he will take steps, by issuing a regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act or otherwise, to suspend for the period of the war tenancy agreements which hinder the production of food and are contrary to the national war effort?

Sir P. Hannon: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Before this Question about fowls in Wolverhampton is answered by the right hon. Gentleman, will you say whether it could not have been more effectively settled by correspondence with the Minister instead of it being put down and so wasting the time of the House?

Mr. Mander: The hon. Gentleman is always trying to interfere without success, and it would be well if he kept quiet, I think. As to the merits of this Question—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had better put the Question.

Mr. Mander: I beg to ask Question No. 41.

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am making inquiries into the facts of the case referred to. With regard to the last part of the Question, I am already considering in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture the possibility of action on the lines suggested.

Mr. Mander: Did not my right hon. Friend give me exactly the same reply last week; and does he not think that the time has now come when it is an urgent matter, seeing that there should be no hindrance to food production, and will he give me the opportunity of discussing this matter with him after Questions?

Mr. MacDonald: indicated assent.

Sir H. Williams: Has not the Minister of Agriculture proposed that a lot of fowls should be killed because there is not enough foodstuffs for them?

Mr. MacDonald: This is a Question dealing with fowls that can be fed upon household waste.

Oral Answers to Questions — STERLING TRANSACTIONS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information as to the amount of free sterling transactions; and, further, whether there is any estimate of the amount of sterling lost by the sale of foreign-held United Kingdom securities in this country?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Transactions in free sterling take place outside this country and I have, therefore, no precise information of them. The market has always been a thin one, and the measures already taken, together with those recently announced, will reduce such transactions to a very small volume. It would not be in the public interest to give any estimate of the kind asked for in the second part of the Question; the restriction on the sale of securities owned by non-residents will effectively put an end to the possibility of losses from this source.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the second part of the Question does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that panic selling of foreign securities may have a serious effect on our financial position?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS TAX (LAND SALES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends that profits made from land sales shall be made subject to 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax?

Sir K. Wood: Any profit arising from sales of land may be a revenue profit or a capital gain according to the circumstances of the particular case. In the former case it would be taken into account in computing profits for the purposes of Excess Profits Tax.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that much of this land sold since

the war had little or no value before the war and that its enhanced value is entirely due to the incidence of war? Will he see that owners derive no benefit at the expense of the people who are fighting?

Sir Cooper Rawson: Will the Chancellor, at the same time, consider giving compensation to people whose property has depreciated in value?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION COUNCIL AND ECONOMIC POLICY.

Mr. White: asked the Prime Minister whether the functions of the Production Council and the Economic Policy Committee are planning and directing, or co-ordinating and advisory?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. As was explained by the Leader of the House on 4th June, the function of the Production Council is to give general direction as to the organisation and priority of production for war purposes, and of the Economic Policy Committee to concert and direct general economic policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (BROADCASTS).

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the broadcast on Italy's entry into the war by the Minister of Information on Monday, 10th June, he will make arrangements to secure that some competent authority, either in the Cabinet or the Foreign Office, shall examine all broadcasts on international affairs before they are delivered?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The speech must be read as a whole, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information, who is discharging his difficult duties with a remarkable measure of success, can be relied on to interpret himself the views of the War Cabinet in the present emergency.

Sir S. Reed: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is not aware that this address caused very great pain and distress—[An Hon. Member: "In Italy."]—to a large number of people in this country?

Mr. Stokes: Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that in the opinion of many competent listeners a speech of that kind is more of a liability than an asset to our cause?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is it not better to be insolent than grovelling in war time? We have been grovelling enough.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S LAND ARMY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the proposed new recruiting drive for the Women's Land Army, adequate steps are being taken for a close co-ordination between the headquarters at Balcombe and his Department?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend go into this matter very fully and consider all the relevant facts, as a great deal which has happened during the last few months wants careful inquiry and it might not be in the public interest for me to tell him here all I know.

Mr. Hudson: If the hon. Member will come and see me I shall be very glad.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure an adequate increase in the number of girls who are required by the Women's Land Army for permanent work, as distinct from those who are engaged for seasonal work only?

Mr. Hudson: Recruiting campaigns for volunteers for regular work as well as for volunteers for seasonal work are being conducted in all parts of the country by Women's Land Army County Committees with encouraging results. The most urgent need now is that farmers, and dairy farmers in particular, should come forward with offers to train and subsequently to employ these volunteers. All farmers should give as long notice in advance of their employment requirements as is possible, so that full advantage may be taken of the results of these recruiting campaigns.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that while the Shropshire Agricultural Wages

Committee have agreed to the 48s. per week minimum for male adult workers, they have increased the cost of board-lodging by 4s. per week and laid it down that, on application, labourers' cottage rents can be increased by 100 per cent.; and what action he proposes to take to prevent these encroachments on the national minimum wage?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I understand that the Shropshire Committee proposes that the value of the provision of board and lodging for a seven-day week in the case of men be increased from 16s. to £1 and to make provision that the general value of 3s. at which a cottage has hitherto been reckoned in part payment of minimum wages may be increased on application, in individual cases up to 6s. per week, less any rates which may be payable. Before the committee's proposals can be made effective a period of seven days is allowed during which any objections may be lodged for the committee's consideration.
The question of cottages was raised at the discussions I had with representatives of agricultural landowners, farmers and farm workers. I stated that I had no doubt that the question of cottage values would arise in connection with the consideration by the committees of the proposed increase in the minimum rates, and that in my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a reasonable arrangement would be for the committees to fix a suitable low general allowance and to make provision in their orders to enable employers to make application for the allowance to be increased up to a maximum of 12½ per cent. of the minimum wage in cases where it could be shown that the standard of the cottage justified an increase.

Mr. Smith: In view of the need for more workers on the land will the right hon. Gentleman take great care that this 48s. minimum wage is not filched away by increases in other directions? Is he also aware that in Shropshire this particular agreement is causing grave dissatisfaction among landowners?

Mr. Hudson: In the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and myself one of the advantages, and one of the most important advantages, to be drawn from increasing the wage to 48s., is the prospect of enabling housing in


rural areas to be improved. Obviously, it cannot be improved if you are to keep the rents at 3s.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that the 48s. a week minimum is not much more than the increase in the cost of living upon wages that were in operation when the war broke out?

Mr. Hudson: I cannot accept that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the increase in the price of agricultural products?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: No, Sir, but as was stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) on the 11th June I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister expedite this statement in view of the fact that some wages boards are refusing to agree to adequate rates for overtime until they know the Minister's decision?

Mr. Hudson: I think the new wage rates will come into operation on 1st July.

Sir J. Lamb: Is the Minister aware that the fact that these prices are not known by farmers is a deterrent to their seeing what labour is required because they are not sure they will be able to pay for it when they get it?

Mr. Hudson: I am sure my hon. Friend realises that the question of giving out a long schedule of prices is a complicated matter. We are pushing on as fast as we can.

Sir J. Lamb: I agree, but seasonal work not done at the time when men should be on the land cannot be done afterwards?

Mr. Hudson: But seasonal work is paid for at existing rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR SUPPLY (STUDENTS AND SCHOOLCHILDREN).

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether farmers are making known their labour demands; and what number of boys from universities, public, secondary and elementary schools are being enrolled for employment this summer?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: My Department is taking every opportunity of urging farmers to give early notification of their labour requirements so that the fullest possible use can be made of all regular, casual and volunteer labour available. But it is essential that farmers' precise needs should be notified in good time to the Employment Exchange or to the County War Agricultural Executive Committees. About 1,100 University students have been enrolled. I cannot give any figure for schoolboys as they are being organised locally and generally by their own schools.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage, so far as he can, the employment of elementary schoolchildren in this way?

Mr. Hudson: It would be employment only during the holidays.

Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. Gentleman says he is taking every step. Is he aware that no specific step has been taken to request farmers to make known their requirements and that in view of the changes in arable cultivation there will be a great deal of confusion if farmers are not asked to make specific returns?

Mr. Hudson: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "no specific step." Every possible publicity in the way of advice has been given by broadcasts and notices issued to the local Press and farmers have been circularised through the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of farmers are not members of the National Farmers' Union and have not received any such circular?

Mr. Hudson: They cannot fail to have seen the notices in the local Press or to have heard the broadcasts.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OF ENGLAND (INCOME TAX).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Bank of England assesses its own profits for Income Tax; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to have them assessed by an independent authority?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1918. Though the assessments are made by the Commissioners named in Section 68, the actual computation of liability is subject to examination and check by the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: How can they make an assessment if they do not issue a balance sheet?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (COST INVESTIGATION).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, he will consider instructing the purchase departments of other Ministries to give up their technical costs branch, so far as it operates for the assessment of profits on contracts, thereby setting a large amount of man power free for other purposes, and immediately causing a speed-up in production by avoiding the delays caused by such cost investigation, together with an actual reduction in cost to the taxpayer?

Sir K. Wood: Instructions have already been issued which will obviate delays which might otherwise be caused by cost investigations at munition works. I cannot, however, agree with the hon. Member when he suggests that the operation of a 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax removes the necessity for ordinary price fixing.

Mr. Stokes: While accepting the right hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion that 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax docs not necessarily remove the necessity for price fixing—though it appears to have done so in the case of the limitation of dividends—is he aware of the real difficulties of these cost investigations and how unnecessary they are in the majority of cases? When will his instructions become effective?

Sir K. Wood: They have already been issued and they will, I hope, obviate the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers.

Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to the fact that the main cost of munitions is not profits

but other costs, and will he continue cost investigations in order to prevent the exploitation of other sections of the community?

Sir K. Wood: I agree with the hon. Member from that point of view.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR BONDS (DAY-TO-DAY BORROWING).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to introduce the system of day-to-day borrowing by means of war bonds which was so successful during the Great War?

Sir K. Wood: I am now considering the form of our future War Loans.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state the quantity of non-designated milk supplied by the Milk Marketing Board as food during the last 12 months, and the approximate quantity of the same pasteurised before being marketed to the public?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): While I feel that it is not in the national interest to give information relating to milk production in this country, I may tell the hon. Member that 45 per cent. of the milk produced during the last 12 months was designated milk. The amount of milk which is pasteurised varies very extensively from town to town and detailed figures are not available.

Mr. Adams: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Milk Marketing Board to have undesignated milk labelled?

EDIBLE WASTE.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the large amount of edible matter that is found in canteen, service and private house dustbins; and will he take steps to prevent this waste?

Mr. Boothby: The need for economy in the use of foodstuffs has been repeatedly stressed, and I am not aware


that any considerable amount of edible matter is at present finding its way into canteen, service and private house dustbins. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any specific instances I will be very glad to inquire into them.

Mr. Loftus: Is the hon. Member aware that in the later stages of the last war every permanent camp in England and France kept pigs to dispose of the camp waste as a measure of food production? Will he consider introducing that to-day, here and abroad?

Mr. Boothby: I was not aware of that fact, but I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Higgs: Is the hon. Member aware that pigs are being fed on edible matter which costs anything from £20 to £200 per ton, and that when turned into pig food it is only worth £2 a ton? Does he consider that an economic procedure?

Mr. Boothby: No, Sir, not if the hon. Member's figures are correct.

BREAD.

Captain Plugge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is yet able to make any statement about the application of science to the nutritive value of bread generally sold in Great Britain?

Mr. Boothby: I am not yet in a position to add to the answer I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Howdenshire (Major Carver) and Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) on 29th May.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask the hon. Member whether he will reserve one day a week when whole meal bread should be eaten and nothing else?

TRANSPORT (ROAD WORKS).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that insignificant lanes throughout the country are being treated with grit and tar, and, in view of the grave shortage of agricultural labour, will he have this unnecessary work stopped forthwith?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) on 5th June. The circular therein referred to has now been issued.

If my hon. Friend has any particular spot in mind where, in his view, unnecessary work is being done, and will communicate with me, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Sir Joseph Nall: Was it not the case that in the last war many roads became broken up and impassable? Is it not in the interest of transport that roads should be maintained in proper order?

Mr. Montague: That point is met in the answer to which I have referred.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the hon. Member look into the case of a number of local authorities who are still insisting on private roads being made up?

Mr. Montague: If the hon. Member cares to see the circular, which is rather a long one, I shall be happy to show it to him.

CLOSED COAL MINES, DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. Batey: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal mines in the county of Durham which have been closed since the last war, and the number it is now intended to re-open?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): The number of pits closed and not re-opened in Durham is approximately the same as that given to the hon. Member in answer to a Question in November, 1938;I am sending him a copy. While the question of re-opening pits will have to be considered, I am convinced that our wisest policy for the present is to allocate any additional manpower that becomes available to those pits which are already in production but are not fully manned.

Mr. Batey: Did the Parliamentary Secretary hear the Minister of Labour say that in Durham County we have nearly 6,000 miners unemployed and that there are pits which are still closed down?

Mr. Grenfell: If there are other pits which can take these men it is far better to send them where they can be immediately engaged in the production of coal than in the slow work of developing an old mine?

Mr. Batey: But the fact that there are 6,000 men unemployed shows that you are not taking these men?

Mr. Grenfell: The hon. Member must know that there is in existence in Durham and in every other coalfield a production council which attends to these matters, and it will play its part in seeing that idle men are not sent to idle pits.

Mr. Batey: Is the hon. Member going to shelter behind them?

Mr. Grenfell: I have never sheltered behind anybody in my life.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

IRON RAILINGS.

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider approaching the different ground landlords in London to ascertain whether they are willing to sacrifice a quantity of unneeded railings in the West End of London which cannot be taken away without such consent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As my hon. Friend will appreciate, ground landlords may be only one of the interests to be consulted in regard to the release of any particular railings. Many large landlords have already voluntarily offered, as ground landlords, to give up their railings, and in cases of complicated ownership, where other interests have agreed, the ground landlords are being approached.

Sir S. Reed: Could not the hon. Member consider making use of those modern abominations, the Belisha beacons?

UTILISATION OF WASTE.

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking, in addition to the development of schemes for avoiding waste and collecting more waste material, to encourage the scientific utilisation of waste and the provision of the necessary plant and organisation to that end?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: With a view to encouraging the scientific utilisation of waste from industry, the Salvage Department of the Ministry of Supply is working in consultation with the Federation of British Industries, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Director of Scientific Research in the

Ministry. To assist in this work the appointment of a chemist with special research experience has been approved. The scientific utilisation of materials collected under the schemes of local authorities is under the constant consideration of the officials of the local authorities, many of whom hold scientific or technical qualifications. In such work they are assisted by the officials of the Salvage Department and 23 honorary district advisers, particulars of whose qualifications were given in answer to a Question yesterday by the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Salt). In cases where additional plant is necessary applications are considered in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Captain Plugge: Is the hon. Member aware that a Parliamentary and Science Committee of this House appointed a subcommittee to investigate the scientific utilisation of waste? Is the hon. Member's Department keeping in close consultation with this sub-committee?

Mr..Macmillan: We desire the closest possible contact on this matter with any official or unofficial committee that is set up.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Member aware that in spite of all the talk about the collection of waste material, there are some authorities which are doing nothing in the matter? Cannot we use some power to compel them?

Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend was asked a Question on this matter two or three days ago, and I think he gave a reply somewhat in the direction indicated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. Member take note that the Wandsworth Council are doing nothing in this matter?

Mr. MacLaren: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) is going to the House of Lords.

AREA COMMITTEE, GLASGOW.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Supply the number of persons forming the Ministry of Supply Area Committee in Glasgow; what are their duties; and what methods have they adopted to acquaint Glasgow firms with the needs of the Ministry?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The Glasgow Advisory Committee consists of 20 members. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the Official Report the present terms of reference of the committee. New arrangements are being made between the Ministry of Labour and the Supply Departments as to the area organisation generally and the future duties of these committees are now under active consideration.

Mr. Davidson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask that in connection with the new arrangement he will take note of the fact that what is considered by business men in Glasgow to be most necessary is that they should be fully acquainted with the needs of the Ministry?

Mr. MacMillan: It is one of the functions of this committee to inform the Ministry of capacity which may be available in the area.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister prepared to state the number of times that this committee has met?

Mr. Macmillan: I must ask for notice if I am to state the exact number of meetings which have been held, but I know that the committee has been in operation.

Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. Gentleman arrange that Scottish Members of Parliament are informed of the exact scope and functions of the office in Glasgow, so that application and inquiries may be properly directed?

Mr. Macmillan: I will see that Members are informed, but I think there is some confusion between area boards and the area committees which are the subject of this Question.

Following are the terms of reference:

(1) To advise the Area Board regarding the efficient output of anything required by the Ministry of Supply and the Defence Departments, and to assist the Board in overcoming local difficulties.
(2) To survey the Area within which the Committee is working with a view to increasing efficient production in the Area.
(3) To consider and make recommendations to the Area Board upon any matter arising out of the terms 1 and 2 except matters which are properly the concern of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, or are nor-

mally handled by the joint organisation of employers and trade unions in connection with wages and conditions of employment.

RUSSIA (BRITISH AMBASSADOR).

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when His Majesty's Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will take up his duties; whether any special powers have been conferred upon the Ambassador apart from the ordinary functions which pertain to his office; and whether any change has been made in the grants and allowances hitherto made to this embassy?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has now arrived in Moscow and has taken up his duties as His Majesty's Ambassador. He will occupy the post in the same capacity in all respects as previous Ambassadors have done. He will not receive a salary but expenses in the form of a representation allowance appropriate to his position.

Sir P. Hannon: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the hon. and learned Gentleman in his capacity as Ambassador to Moscow will retain his seat in this House?

Mr. Butler: If my hon. Friend turns to Sir Erskine May's work he will read there:
It has always been held that the office of ambassador or other foreign minister does not disqualify, nor its acceptance vacate the seat of a member.

Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is likely that other Members of this House will be appointed?

ITALY (BRITISH NATIONALS).

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether ample facilities are being arranged for the return of British nationals from Italy to this country, and to His Majesty's Dominions, Colonies, and Protectorates; and whether financial assistance will be provided where necessary?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal what will be the business of the House next week?

Mr. Attlee: The business of the House next week will be as follows:

Tuesday—Supply (12th Allotted Day); Committee. The Votes for the Department of Health and Public Education, Scotland, and the Scottish Home Department, will be considered.

Wednesday—Report stage of the Finance Bill, and it will no doubt be agreeable to the House to take the Third Reading immediately afterwards.

Thursday—Supply (13th Allotted Day); Committee. After going formally into Committee of Supply the Adjournment of the House will be moved and a Debate will take place in Secret Session on Home Defence.

During the week, as opportunity offers, further progress will be made with the Remission of Rates (London) Bill, the War Charities Bill [Lords] and the Marriage (Scotland) (Emergency Provisions) Bill [Lords].

Mr. Lees-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to Thursday, that it might be desirable by that time to extend the scope of the Debate beyond the subject of Home Defence by itself?

Mr. Attlee: I shall be pleased to consider any representations which may be made on the matter.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Can the Lord Privy Seal give any information as to when the Prime Minister is likely to make any further statement to the House on the general progress of the war?

Mr. Attlee: I am afraid I cannot give it at the moment.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[Mr. Attlee.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Post Office and Telegraph Bill,

Superannuation Schemes (War Service) Bill,

Poor's Allotments in Hornsey Bill,

without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Evidence and Powers of Attorney Bill [Lords],

South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939." [Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the closing for all purposes of the Middlesex Deeds Register, and for granting indemnities in respect of losses which may arise from the closing thereof; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Middlesex Deeds Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Ascot District Gas and Electricity Company and other Companies authorised to supply gas; and for other purposes." [South-Eastern Gas Corporation Limited (Associated Companies) Bill [Lords.]

SOUTH-EASTERN GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ASSOCIATED COMPANIES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[11th ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1940.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH (WAR SERVICES).

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for measures in England and Wales to deal with casualties and disease, for expenses connected with evacuation, for repair of war damage and for other services arising out of the war.

Mr. Cocks: On a point of Order. Will it be in Order in this Debate to raise the question of evacuating children from this country to the Dominions, on the ground that evacuation from one part of England to another is inadequate?

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch my eye and tries to raise that question, he will find that I shall stop him, should I think he is going beyond the proper limits.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do I take it that the evacuation which is to be examined to-day is evacuation with regard to England only, and that it will be out of Order to raise questions of Scottish evacuation? I understand that it is intended to debate a number of Scottish matters next Tuesday.

The Chairman: There are two Votes on the Order Paper to-day. There is the Vote which has just been read from the Chair and there is a similar vote in respect of Scotland. I took that as an indication that it might be intended that both should be debated to-day, in which case, if the Committee wish it, the two Votes can be discussed together. That can only be done with the general assent of the Committee. At the moment what is before us is the English Vote only. If it is desired that the Scottish Vote on the Order Paper should be included in this discussion, a Question should be addressed to the Chair and it would be allowed with the assent of the Committee.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I, then, formally ask such a question in order to ascertain whether the Committee would approve of the Scottish question being considered to-day?

Mr. Denman: Has the Minister responsible for the Scottish Department been informed that there may be a discussion on his work?

The Chairman: I am now given to understand that the Scottish Vote will be put down for Tuesday next.

Mr. Stephen: Not the Scottish Vote which deals with this matter. There are other Scottish questions which have to be discussed on Tuesday and surely it would be more appropriate that in a general discussion on evacuation, Scottish Members should have an opportunity of being heard to-day.

The Chairman: In the circumstances I shall have to be guided by what takes place in the course of the Debate. At the moment the only question before the Committee is the Vote which has been read from the Chair.

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I understand that this Debate has been arranged to-day because hon. Members wish to discuss certain aspects of the problems of evacuation and the emergency hospitals scheme. No doubt it will help the Committee if I make a statement on both those questions straight away. The first question, on which I understand hon. Members wish most discussion, is that of evacuation. This is a somewhat complex and difficult problem. During the last two or three weeks the Government have taken a series of decisions and actions regarding evacuation of this or that area, which may appear to be in conflict with earlier decisions, or which, coming as they have one after another as a series of isolated acts, may seem to be somewhat disjointed and unrelated to any broad conception of what policy should be. But I can assure the Committee that the Government have a carefully thought-out and consistent policy on evacuation which is governed by certain definite principles, and into which every one of the recent moves fits.
I think it would be timely if I gave the Committee a comprehensive statement of the principles governing our policy, so that they may appreciate exactly what the position is to-day, as the Government sees it, in the light of the most recent developments in the war. First let me say something about a proposal which, I believe, commends itself to many hon. Members in the Committee, that is, that evacuation should be made compulsory. I think, if we are to have a clear picture of this problem in relation to the proposal for compulsory evacuation, one must begin by making a certain distinction. There are two quite different reasons for which the evacuation of a large part of the population of a place might take place. The first reason is this. A place might be likely to become the scene of actual military operations in which our Forces were engaged against the Forces of the enemy. Such a situation might arise if the enemy were to attempt an invasion of this country. They would, perhaps, attempt to seize certain places on the coast and occupy them as bridgeheads, through which they could pump reinforcements of men and material, and from which they might spread out an offensive over the neighbouring country.
Of course, our Forces would immediately resist that attempt. If such operations were to begin, any civilians left in the areas of these operations would conduct themselves best, both from the point of view of their own personal safety, and from the point of view of the success of our operations, by staying where they were. They should not, under these circumstances attempt to evacuate. They should not go in a crowd of refugees on to the roads, as great parts of the population of Belgium did, and embarrass the operations of our military Forces. But it is true, of course, that the resistance of our Forces to the enemy would be simpler and easier if, before the operations started at all, the civilian population of places affected was reduced to a minimum. In these circumstances it would be desirable that, prior to operations starting, there should be an evacuation of a considerable proportion of the local population. I can only say that the Government are keeping the prospects under constant study, and that they have this matter under review every 24 hours, and that in a case like that, where some evacuation might be

necessary for military reasons, the Government would not rule out the possibility of compulsory evacuation.
There is a second reason for which evacuation from a centre might be required. This second reason arises not because a place is likely to become the scene of actual military operations on the land, but because our cities and towns may be targets for enemy attacks from the air. Into this category falls the vast majority of the evacuation areas which we know—London, Glasgow, Newcastle, Sheffield, Birmingham, Coventry, and other great cities and towns which are evacuation areas come into this second category. They are the great industrial centres of the country, the places where the production of our powerful war weapons is going on day and night, the places where our ships are being built, and where our vital trade is proceeding. It is likely that the enemy would wish to strike at these places to cripple them and destroy them, if possible, by sending over great fleets of aircraft to hurl down on them bombs from the air. These places have their defences. There are our fighter aircraft which would engage the enemy and certainly inflict far greater damage than they received. There are the anti aircraft batteries which would certainly take a heavy toll of any invading aircraft. Then there are arrangements for the passive defence of the civil population—the private and public shelters which are distributed widely throughout those threatened cities and towns. But in addition an important part of the plan for the protection of the civilian population in these congested areas is that a proportion of the population which could be spared should be taken away, should be evacuated to places of greater safety. Why is that? What is the principle behind this major part of the Government's evacuation policy? Why when we have our fighter aircraft, our anti-aircraft batteries, and our shelters, is it necessary, in addition, to contemplate evacuation from these centres of a proportion of the population? It is because there is greater safety in what is called "dispersal."
I need only give one brief illustration to make the point. I have given it before, but one has to say the same thing over and over and over again, sometimes, to get it into the heads of a large part of


the population. Supposing that there are 10,000 people crowded closely together, and a bomb falls into the middle of that tightly packed crowd. The number of deaths and injuries, from direct hits, from fires started by the bombs, and from shock, would be very considerable indeed. If one now imagines that same crowd of 10,000 people scattered widely over a large area and the same bomb falling into the middle of that area, the number of deaths, injuries, and shocks will naturally be very much lower indeed. These evacuation areas are congested areas. The population of London, for instance, lives as thickly, on the average, as 34,000 people to every square mile; the population of the evacuation areas in England and Scotland, on the average, lives as thickly as 11,000 people to every square mile. In contrast to that, the population in the reception areas is scattered widely and is living on the ground to the extent of only 250 people per square mile.

Major Milner: If you increased the number of bombs in proportion to the increase of area, would not the risk be the same?

Mr. MacDonald: I will not enter into fine mathematical calculations, but I think the Committee will appreciate the point that there is greater danger to civilians in an area which is being bombed if they are living under congested conditions than if they are scattered much more widely over the ground. Therefore, it is quite obvious that if people are to be taken from congested areas which are likely to be the targets of attack and widely scattered over other places which are less likely to be attacked, the safety of those people is very greatly increased. The question is, Should the evacuation of people from these congested areas which might be the subject of attack from the air be made compulsory? I know that a good many hon. Members of this House would say "Yes"—I dare say that some hon. Members will urge that in the course of the discussion this afternoon—but I must say, frankly and unequivocally, at the very beginning, that the Government, after the most careful consideration of the problem, take the opposite view, and I should like to state the reasons which have led us to that conclusion.
In the first place, it is absolutely true that people who are taken from the evacuation areas and billeted in the reception areas are much safer than they would be if they stayed where they were before. Nevertheless, the Government cannot give any guarantee that they will be absolutely safe. We are fighting an enemy who has shown that he does not regard it as repugnant to bomb peaceful agricultural villages. We are facing enemy airmen who have shown that they are not averse to machine-gunning innocent civilians walking in the fields; and although the safety of people in these country districts is greater than it would be if they stayed in the large towns, we cannot give any guarantee of absolute safety. I think that if the Government were to compel evacuation, especially of children, and if some of these evacuees were afterwards killed, unfortunately, the Government would have assumed a heavy responsibility which, short of absolute military necessity, they ought not to have put themselves into the position of assuming. But that is not the actual argument which persuades us to oppose the proposal for compulsory evacuation. There is another and a more weighty point.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: On the first point, surely the Government have to make up their minds whether the children would be safer under the one plan than under the other. If they are of the view that they are more safe when they are spread, why not spread them? The responsibility is equally taken if you leave them where they are.

Mr. MacDonald: If I may say so, I think that is a cogent point, but to me this first argument which I have just put is not the most decisive one, and I would like, in pursuing my case, to make this second argument, which to me is an absolutely decisive one. There is a considerable difference between the evacuation about which I have spoken from places which might become the field of military operations and evacuation from these other places which are most likely to be the targets of attack from the air. Generally speaking, those first places are comparatively small, and the evacuation of a considerable part of their population would not involve very large numbers. Generally speaking, it would be possible


for families to go together, and the actual separation of families under that kind of evacuation would be reduced to a minimum. But the conditions in these other evacuation areas are quite different. It would be impossible to take out of these towns and cities the whole or anything like the whole of the population in them. Only a comparatively small part of the population can go, for two reasons.
In the first place, as I have said, these are centres of vital activity, of vital industrial production. The great majority of men and women in them must stay where they are because they are either concerned themselves in vital war production, or else their presence in these centres is necessary to those who are so engaged. They have to stay where they are. The second consideration is this. The population of these places is vast. Greater London has a population of many millions, and the figures are almost astronomical in the case of many others of the evacuation areas. The accommodation in the reception areas is comparatively limited; it is not boundless. The reception areas are capable of taking only a comparatively small proportion of these populations about which I am speaking.
Because of those two reasons we have been bound to select certain categories of the population in these evacuation areas for inclusion in the organised Government scheme of evacuation. Those categories have been selected as a result of experience, and the reasons why they have been selected have been explained to this House before. In some cases they are obvious; in other cases they are familiar to hon. Members, and I do not intend to go into that argument again. There is provision, for instance, for the evacuation of expectant mothers during the last months of their pregnancy. Those mothers are going out, for instance, from London almost every day as they express the desire to be taken to reception areas.
But the great majority of those who are included in the Government scheme are schoolchildren, and what it comes down to is this: The compulsory evacuation of these places means the compulsory evacuation of the school child population, and that in turn means the compulsory separation, in these times of anxiety, in these times of danger, of

families, of parents from their offspring. Is that possible? I venture to suggest to the Committee that it is not. I know very well that there are hon. Members who say that if the Government give an order and make a law in war-time, the population will obey, and, generally speaking, I agree that that is true. I agree that the population are ready to go a very long way in following whatever lead the Government give them, but I think there are exceptions to that rule, and I think we come to one of the exceptions when we come to this question of the compulsory evacuation of schoolchildren. When we touch the ties binding families together in this country, thank goodness we still touch something which is exceedingly tender and exceedingly sacred. The devotion of a father to his child and the passionate love of a mother for her offspring are sentiments which cannot easily be tampered with by Government action, and we have to face the fact that there are very large numbers of parents in this country in the evacuation areas who, rightly or wrongly, will not be separated from their children during this time of emergency and anxiety and danger.
The evidence of that comes to me from every region in the country. It is strong, it is emphatic, and it is decisive. Take the case of London. I have discussed this question with leading members of the London County Council and with officials of the London County Council. I have discussed it with school teachers, and I have discussed it with parents, and their opinion is absolutely unanimous. They say with one voice that if the Government were to order a compulsory evacuation of schoolchildren from London, there are thousands upon thousands of parents who would not obey that order. That is true of London people. I am told, by regional commissioners and others, that it becomes truer still the further you go North. Then if one discusses this question in contact with reality at all, one has to accept the fact that there are scores of thousands of parents in the evacuation areas who, if the order for compulsory evacuation of schoolchildren went out, would not obey the law.
If that were the situation, what would the Government do about it? In that situation the Government would have to


choose between two alternatives. The first is this. The Government might close their eyes to the fact that the law was being broken, and they might allow those parents to break the law with impunity. As a matter of fact, that is a suggestion which has been urged upon me by many people who advocate compulsory evacuation but who admit that a large proportion of the parents would not obey. I reject that suggestion. It seems to me that that would be not merely a dangerous but a fatal precedent to create in war-time. It would undermine respect for law in this country, and respect for law has to be particularly absolute, so to speak, in time of war, because it does unfortunately fall to the Government to make a great many laws which are exceedingly severe on the private citizen. It is very tempting for private citizens to evade or break those laws, but in the national interest it is essential that the Government should stand firmly for the carrying out of those laws. How can they do it in other cases if they allow one important law to be broken by a large part of the population with impunity? The discipline of the nation would break down, and we must abide by the principle, especially in war-time, that we should only pass laws that the people will obey or that the people will be punished for breaking, if they do break them.
The second alternative open to the Government, supposing they had ordered compulsory evacuation and a large number of parents did not obey that order, would be to impose penalties upon those people. That is the central issue of this question of compulsory evacuation. It is no good hon. Members advocating compulsory evacuation unless they are prepared to face that issue. I should like to hear from every Member who advocates it exactly what penalty he would impose upon those parents who did not obey. I can think of no penalty which would be effective other than imprisonment, at any rate for a short time. Let the House imagine what the situation would be then. The compulsory evacuation of school children would have been ordered. The day after the move had been completed we should know where the children were and where the parents were who had not conformed to the Government Order. I

suppose the police would have to go round to their homes. I am not exaggerating the picture in the least. This is the practical part of the problem. One lot of police would have to take the children, in many cases out of the very hands of their parents, and take them off to the trains which would convey them to the reception areas. Another lot of police would have to take the parents and march them off to prison. That would happen in thousands of homes in London and in other evacuation areas in the country.
All I say is that I do not think it could be done. Even if it were practicable, even if there were room in our prisons and detention camps for these tens and, perhaps, scores of thousands of parents whom we should have to put under lock and key, I do not believe it would be right to do it. In war-time there have to be relations of mutual respect and confidence between the great body of private citizens and the Government. I believe that that relationship would be destroyed by this proposal. To-day we have harmony between the people and the Government. An attempt to put this proposal into effect would turn that harmony into discord. I believe it would threaten most seriously that national unity which, above all things, is important if we are to get through the trials that lie ahead of us and emerge from them successfully.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: Is it contemplated at any time to have compulsory evacuation of children? What steps will be taken in the last resort if a city is threatened, as was the case in Spain? There the children and women were evacuated and it relieved the military operations enormously. Is any similar step contemplated?

Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps my hon. Friend was not here at the beginning of my speech when I dealt with that situation, which is quite different from the one I am now discussing. In a case of military necessity the Government would contemplate compulsory evacuation for a large proportion of the population, not simply children, but others as well. In that case it would not be necessary, save in a minority of cases, to separate members of families. I am putting before the Committee the practical considerations which have decided the Government


against the compulsory advance evacuation of school children. We have to abide by the voluntary principle if this policy is to be carried out with the consent and good will of the population in the evacuation areas, and, I may say, in the reception areas as well. A great many stern, unbending advocates of compulsory evacuation have never considered the people in the reception areas at all. We have to recognise that there are limits to what the Government can do. They must put the issue fully, fairly, and frankly before parents in the evacuation areas. They must state without any equivocation the advantages of transferring the children to the reception areas. The Government must be equally frank in stating the nature of the risks which children run if they stay in large cities and towns which may be bombed.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we must take into consideration the areas to which the children are being evacuated. That is true, but is it not also true that the Government would be delighted if all the children were voluntarily evacuated? If that is so, they would still have to consider the people in the reception areas, so that the question of compulsory evacuation does not make any difference.

Mr. MacDonald: I think that it makes a great deal of difference. The position in the reception areas would be one thing if children went with the willing consent of their parents, and another thing if they went forcibly while their parents were being sent to prison. The Government must do everything they can, short of resort to compulsion, to make the issue perfectly clear to the parents in the evacuation areas. I have heard parents say that the risk of a direct hit upon a child from a bomb or piece of shrapnel is rather remote, but parents must understand that that is only a small part of the risk. There may be death or wounds from direct hits, but I dare say that there will be more casualties as a result of injuries from fires started by incendiary bombs. Even when we have exhausted all those possibilities, if a child is not hurt in its body it will certainly be hurt in its mind. Perhaps the greatest argument for taking children away from these centres is that the effect, perhaps the permanent effect, on their minds of the

sounds, the sights and the horrors of aerial bombardment in a large city or town may be very terrible. We ought to safeguard our children as much as we can from that kind of thing during their young and impressionable years. It is for the Government to state these things frankly to the parents, but they must then leave the responsibility on the parents to decide whether they keep their children with them in the evacuation areas or send them to the reception areas where safety, though not absolute, is relatively greater.
I should like to say a few words about the reception areas. At the beginning of the war the reception areas were fixed widely over the country from the North to the South, from the East coast to the West coast, and some hundreds of thousands of people took advantage of the Government's scheme and went voluntarily into those areas. I am glad to say that a large proportion of the school children, at any rate, have remained in those districts ever since. They are taller, stronger, healthier and happier as a result of their stay. Some parents whose children are still in evacuation areas, however, have become nervous and fearful about some of the reception areas. To some extent the reason why registrations have been so indifferent is fear lest the children would be sent to places where the danger was considerable as a result of the way the war has developed. Many parents have spoken to me about places on the East coast. The Government have anticipated their fears. The Government have generally been a move ahead of the parents in watching the situation, and making such adjustments as are necessary.
The war has changed since September in a way which my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Health and the Government could not foresee. We have bed to wait on events. My right hon. Friend's policy was an elastic one, and he was always ready to make adaptations according to changes in the situation. We have been faced with the fact that within recent weeks the enemy have gained occupation of the coasts of Holland, Belgium, and Northern France, and that fact changes the aspect of some of the reception areas. As a result, the Government have made certain moves in regard to evacuation in the last few weeks. Let me recite those moves in order to emphasise my point. First, we took away from certain urban centres on parts of


the east and south-east coast children who had been evacuated to them. Five thousand children left those places for the Midlands and the West three weeks ago. Second, there were still a good many evacuated children in rural areas in a belt of country stretching for some 10 miles inland from the coast round a great part of East Anglia and Kent. There were 7,000 of those children, and they were moved 10 days ago to places of greater safety in the Midlands and South Wales. Third, we have considered the position of resident children in 19 towns on the coasts of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and Kent, and on the Medway, and we decided that they should be moved to safer places. The parents in these towns were invited to register their children and 37,000 were moved to places of greater safety 10 days ago. Fourth, we announced the day before yesterday that the parents of resident children in these towns and certain additional towns would have a fresh chance to register their children yesterday and to-day with a view to the newly registered children being moved westward in the next few days.
Let me emphasise this point further by drawing attention to a significant fact in the evacuation of the 120,000 London children who were registered—I hope those actually evacuated will reach that number—which starts to-day and will continue for the next six days. Under the plan for the evacuation of London children it was the Government's policy up to a few weeks ago to send 60,000 London children to places on the east and south-east coast or in the neighbourhood of that coast. Under the actual evacuation plan which is starting to-day not one child is going east of London. They are all going west of London, and the majority of them are going to Cornwall Devonshire, Somerset, and Wales. As a result of recent developments in the war we have drawn a line down the coast from the Tweed, down the east coast, round the corner and a good way along the south coast, varying in distance from the coast but always a considerable number of miles from it. Into that coastal belt no child from outside will be evacuated in future, whether from London, Leeds, or anywhere else.
I mention these facts to show that the Government are keeping this question of evacuation areas and reception areas

under constant review. As a matter of fact, it comes up for review at 10·30 every morning, and if necessary at any other hour in between.

Mr. James Griffiths: Does this review include not only a review of the places to be evacuated but of the places which were chosen, many of them two, three or four years ago, as reception areas, and does it take account of any changes in the degree of danger to be apprehended consequent upon industrial developments since?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, that is certainly so. The case I have just given is a case in point. Many of the urban and rural areas in the eastern and south-eastern counties were reception areas up to two or three weeks ago, and now in some cases they have been made not merely neutral areas but evacuation areas; and we also keep an eye on the situation as it may change in any part of a reception area as well as in every one of the evacuation areas.
I must not close this review without saying a few words about the householders and the voluntary workers who have done so much in the reception areas. As I said a few moments ago, some of the stern unbending advocates of evacuation are a little apt to forget problems which arise in the reception areas. Large numbers of children have been in the reception areas for many months, ever since September of last year, and I do not think any praise can be too high for the devotion of foster parents, of school teachers, and of all sorts of voluntary workers who have made life pleasant and made conditions as easy and comfortable as may be for these young visitors. Under recent movements and under the move from London started to-day, and under future movements which may have to take place, an additional burden and strain will be put upon people in the reception areas. We understand that. The Ministry of Health's officers and other people concerned are available in those areas to ease the problems and help the people as much as they possibly can; and I can only say that I am certain that those people whose national service is the care of the young generation, upon whom the future of this country after the war will depend, will perform that duty with the same devotion and the same care as so many of them have shown during the past few months.
I have spoken about evacuation at great length because I was advised that that was the subject which most hon. Members wished to concentrate upon this afternoon, but I must try the patience of the Committee by speaking for a few moments on the emergency hospital scheme. Hon. Members know that the Ministry of Health have been charged with the administration of a great hospital system which is to look after not only all civilian casualties which may occur as a result of the grim events of this war, but also the great majority of military casualties coming from the various fronts in the war. An immense structure has been created to fulfil that purpose, and it is growing every day. As a new-comer I can look upon it with a good deal of detachment, and I will say in one sentence that I think that what has been achieved is immensely to the credit of my right hon. Friend who was my predecessor, and his helpers and advisers. The machine has already been explained to this House, and I shall not take up time by describing it again, but this system is now receiving its first real test. We are now able to estimate how it is going to work in actual practice, because the first emergency has been right upon us during the last two weeks. In those two weeks we have received from Dunkirk and from other parts of the front several thousand military casualties, which have been distributed over more than 50 hospitals in different parts of the country, including a few hospitals in Scotland.
It is not possible for me to-day to make any considered and final statement on how the organisation has stood this sudden and rather severe test. I can make only a brief interim statement. Reports from different hospitals are still coming in and are being studied carefully by my advisers and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and myself. I say without hesitation that in general they show that the arrangements for the reception and the care of those thousands of men coming from the battle line have worked smoothly and satisfactorily. There have been some hitches, perhaps some mistakes. I admit that, and as a matter of fact, though it is sad to say so, I think they were inevitable. When a large machine is being put into operation

for the first time some hitches are bound to occur. One always has to learn from experience, and I can assure the House that we shall study the reports coming in with the greatest possible care, and with the one desire that any faults which may show here and there shall be corrected by changes of machinery or, if necessary, of personnel. We must have a hospital system which will give the best possible service to the men who come back from the fighting fronts. I repeat that these reports show already that in general the machine is working both smoothly and satisfactorily, but I would add that one cannot test the machine by staying in London and getting reports. That may be satisfactory up to a point, but one can only see how the machine really works by studying its operations not only in the London region but in all the other regions where casualties are being received and treated, and I would appreciate it if hon. Members would keep a watch upon this emergency hospital scheme in their different areas and let me know what information they receive about it.
I should have liked to go myself into all the regions and to get into touch with my hospital officers, the regional commissioners, and other authorities concerned, and to study the workings of the machine in every part of the field, but, of course, it is impossible for me to be away from London for the time which would be necessary. Still, I do feel that this is the time to study the machine most carefully, when it is beginning to operate, because it may be that in actual practice we shall find that some changes are necessary. Therefore I have looked for somebody with experience, ability and wisdom in these matters who might go round to all the regions and present a report to me upon how the system is working. I approached my right hon. Friend the Member for North Midlothian (Mr. Colville), who until recently was Secretary of State for Scotland, and he agreed to go on that commission on behalf of the Government. He is accompanied by Mr. Rock Carling the eminent surgeon, who is my adviser on casualty services. With him also is Mr. Beam my principal supply officer. This team of three—a very able team—has gone to visit the regions in order to watch this hospital system at work.
They started off last Monday, when they went to Newcastle. They are then going on to region No. 2, the headquarters of which are at Leeds. I expect they will come back this week-end and present an interim report—not in writing, but by word of mouth, because we have no time to write things out and send them through the post. They will come back at the week-end to discuss with me the problems which they have found in the northern part of the country, and at the beginning of next week they will start off again, perhaps to visit the region in the south-east, in Kent and Sussex, where a great many of the casualties have been arriving during the last two weeks. They have agreed to pay a visit to every one of the regions in the next few weeks in order to discuss matters on the spot with all the authorities concerned, so that we may see exactly how this hospital machine is working, and if there is any need for changes we shall not hesitate to make them. But I feel certain that no fundamental change is necessary. It is an extremely carefully-thought out and well-planned machine, but we have to see, in the light of experience, that it is in perfect working order, because unless people are satisfied that the treatment which civilian casualties and military casualties will get is the best treatment we can provide, they will not have that calm and confident spirit which will be necessary if we are to face the trials which are upon us and fight our way through to victory.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Before my right hon. Friend sits down will he say whether the terms of reference of this committee are in any way restricted to more or less administrative problems, or cover technical problems, or whether they are unlimited?

Mr. MacDonald: The terms of reference are entirely unlimited. They are concerned with the administration of the emergency hospital scheme itself, the relation of that administration to the administration of the regional commissioners, the supply of beds, the supply of equipment, the supply of nurses, the supply of doctors—every relevant question is within their terms of reference. There is no limit whatever to their inquiries, and I am certain that with their ability and their sense of business they will deal with whatever matters may arise.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: We are concerned this afternoon, I take it, with the education of thousands of children in new areas and under new conditions. We had a very clear exposition of the issue of compulsion, but I take it hon. Members will be in Order in raising such questions as the feeding of children in the new areas, the whole arrangements for their reception in the new areas, the contact with the local education authorities, and a whole host of similar questions; or are we confined to the mere movement of the children from one place to another?

The Chairman: I think hon. Members must wait. It is very difficult for the Chair to say in anticipation what will or will not be in Order. Hon. Members will have before them the actual Vote and will note the sub-heads. The hon. Member mentioned education. We must remember that that does not fall to be discussed to-day, because it comes under another Vote, with another Minister. I hope hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will do their best to see what is covered by this Vote and to deal only with matters which are relevant, and then I shall pull them up as seldom as possible.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to that point of Order. Is it not desirable that when these Votes are put down they should be so comprehensive as to enable hon. Members to discuss all the various aspects of the subject?

The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. These Votes are put down under arrangements which are, perhaps, slightly different at the moment from those ordinarily operating through the usual channels; but that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Ammon: I venture to put this point. The evacuation which is involved raises the important point that teachers as well as children are evacuated. Therefore we cannot avoid discussing the problems arising, which will involve discussing the mutual relationships.

The Chairman: Again it is impossible for me to say definitely in advance that what hon. Members want to say would or would not be in Order. That subject is, to my mind, in Order, within reason, but we must wait and see how hon. Members try to deal with it, and I ask


hon. Members to use their discretion and judgment in these matters. I cannot give Rulings beforehand generally on what is or what is not in Order, beyond saying that nothing is in Order which is not covered by the Vote which has been read from the Chair and which is Vote 5 in the Unclassified Services.

4.46 p.m.

Miss Cazalet: The Minister of Health has made, as he always does, an extremely able, interesting and persuasive speech on various important aspects of his Ministry. I wish to deal with one aspect only, the evacuation of our school children. I think he made an overwhelming case this afternoon for compulsion in this matter. I cannot help feeling that, if persuasion was all that was needed at the present time, the speeches of the Minister of Health and some of his colleagues, both here and on the wireless, would have done the trick by now. They would have resulted in at least a majority of our children having been registered for evacuation. If the Government still intend to stick to their policy of evacuation by persuasion rather than by compulsion, which, I am convinced, is the right policy at the present time, then I suggest that it might be useful to get a few Norwegian, French, Belgian and Dutch mothers to the wireless, giving the personal experiences of themselves and their children during the last few weeks or months in their respective countries. I was deeply impressed by a report of a friend of mine who was in Warsaw. She is an English lady, and one of the bravest people I know. She was in Warsaw almost till the end, and she said that nothing was more terrible to witness than the fright and terror of children during the air raids.
In spite of what the Minister has said to-day, I submit that the policy of evacuation by persuasion has failed, and that its failure is proved by the figures, some of which were given by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. I think he said that only 120,000 children in London had been registered for evacuation, but he did not say out of how many. As far as I understand, there are at least 500,000 children altogether in London and Greater London at the present time, which really means that only one out of four children has registered as a result

of the policy of persuasion. I think I am correct in saying, without going into detail figures, that roughly the same figure is furnished by other vulnerable areas in the country. Many of us are getting tired of hearing it said that we must wait for the bombs to drop before the parents will really make up their minds whether they want their children to go to places of greater safety or not. But it may then be too late to get them away. The Minister told us to-day what I think he said also on the wireless last week, that one of the chief reasons why the Government will not employ compulsion is that they do not wish to invade the sacred rights of family life. I quite understand that point of view, but I submit that the sacred rights of the nation are still more important at this time. If the future is to belong to the children of to-day then for Heaven's sake let us do everything we can to preserve their lives and to get them as far away as possible from places which we think will be most vulnerable.
I know that many people say that London is the safest place; that may or may not be the case, but it is an interesting fact that almost all persons of means have already evacuated their children from London and other vulnerable centres. In Hyde Park and other places in the West End children are conspicuous to-day by their absence, but I regret that that is not the case in Islington and other crowded areas of London.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does the hon. Lady mean that the children have gone with their parents?

Miss Cazalet: Not necessarily. There are a great many parents in London who have evacuated their children, but that is not the case in the more crowded districts. I know a good many teachers and responsible people in London who do not think that thousands of parents would break the law if compulsion were brought in. I think the Minister under-estimates the good sense of parents, and particularly of mothers. I believe it is the absolute duty of the Government to arrange for compulsory evacuation now of all children of school age while it can be done with comparative ease or in an orderly fashion. There is no doubt from what the Minister has said that he believes that there is a danger not only of invasion but of large-


scale air raids in different parts of the country. We cannot help remembering what has happened in France and Belgium, when the roads were simply crammed with mothers, children and aged persons fleeing away in frightened disorder. We know to our cost how greatly they impaired and prevented the counterblow of the Allies. The same thing might happen to us; unlike the Germans, we do not bomb and machine-gun our women and children.
If the step I am suggesting was taken, I do not for a moment believe that, as has been suggested by the Minister of Health, our prisons would be filled with disobedient parents. There is overwhelming evidence to show that when the Government think it right to bring in compulsory measures our people fall into line at once willingly. Only this morning I was talking to a friend who had been trying to persuade some parents yesterday to evacuate their children. They had not wanted to do so. In the last resort he suggested to them that they might have to, if compulsion were brought in by the Government. The parents immediately said: "Oh, that is quite different. Then we should have to." I believe that the vast majority of parents in the country to-day would be only too glad to have their minds made up for them, and I think it is the duty of the Government to make the decision now. I would like the Prime Minister to make the announcement himself.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I congratulate the Minister upon giving us a clear and lucid statement of the position, though one has to admit that the statement that he has given us of the experiences of the last evacuation suggest that, on the whole, the evacuation policy is a failure. Let us face that fact from the beginning, and perhaps we shall get some help if we briefly review the position and the lessons that have been learnt. The Ministry have undoubtedly learned something from those experiences. Last September 600,000 people were evacuated from London and some 200,000 of them are still away. The Ministry have helped to make the position a little more unpopular, and more difficult in getting people to agree to evacuation. Perhaps conditions were beyond their control, but certainly not beyond their foresight. They

have now found it necessary to recall children from places to which they were sent for safety, because those places have become dangerous. That has given parents cause for objection.
The Minister said that the object was to reduce to a minimum the population in the crowded areas. If he means to a minimum of population, the evacuation scheme is not doing it, because the crowded areas remain crowded. The numbers who have registered will make very little difference, and a bomb on one of those areas will still be a bomb upon a crowded area. The analogies and illustrations which the Minister gave do not carry very much weight in that connection. Having brought back those people from the South-East and East Coasts, which was the right thing to do, the Ministry have now to answer the question which is being put by many parents: "Why did you take us away from London, which, as far as we can see is well protected and well guarded, and send us to places from which you have now taken us away, and where there were no air-raid shelters?"
I have had to bring to the notice of the President of the Board of Education letters which I have had from school mistresses, complaining that there are no shelters in places where they still remain. This complaint is not peculiar to London; the same thing is said elsewhere. We have had an excellent report issued by the City of Manchester and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has seen it. It sets out some of the lessons that the city has learnt from the evacuation scheme. When they set about putting the scheme into operation on the last occasion, 133,000 persons had registered for evacuation, including priorities. When evacuation took place, and up to 5th September, 84,209 people had gone, of whom 63,500 were schoolchildren. Within a month, this number had fallen to 30,015. That story can be repeated throughout the country in various evacuating areas.
The House of Commons has discussed this matter on a number of occasions and I do not propose to spend any more time on this aspect of it, beyond pointing out that, to a large extent, the previous experience makes the present position a little more difficult. Let us take the illustration of London, which is very much


wider than the London County Council area when we are considering it for the purposes of the evacuation scheme. It extends from Croydon to Ilford in one direction to Charlton to Islington in the other. Only about 120,000 children have been registered in the area, out of a remaining school population of 500,000, which, in round figures, means one in four. That cannot be called a success in relieving the burden of pressure upon the population. I am casting no reflection or criticism upon the Ministry, but we must face that fact.
In the light of that situation, it seems that one is thrown back upon the scheme to which the hon. Lady referred, that of compulsion. But immediately you mention compulsion you raise such a tremendous amount of trouble and criticism that I do not wonder that the Government have paused before putting it into effect. I have been in touch with some of those who have made inquiries and with some of the registration officers, and they all bring back most extraordinary reports of the obstinacy of parents in face of any suggestion of compulsion, even when the most dire consequences of failure to evacuate have been placed before them. Some of the answers, although they may seem trivial to us, are certainly not trivial so far as the parents are concerned, and they are difficult to overcome. I am basing my statement on the inquiries of competent, efficient people whose job it is to carry out the scheme, and with whom I have got in touch. I served on the education committee of the London County Council for many years, so that I have been able to get in touch with them, and I know something of the work. The parents have said, "Even when the bombs fall we are not prepared to separate, and although we may not like it, we are all going to die together." It has been our duty to point out that people who talk like that, to a large extent have lived their lives and that they should have more regard for the younger people, but it does not have very much effect.
Evacuation has been unpopular in other ways. There is a certain slogan in many parts of London, "Once billeted, twice shy," and we have been met with that answer to a large extent. I am not saying that I agree with these objections, but one must bear in mind how the minds

of the people are working with regard to this matter. Another question which people raise is this: If the Government really wish children to be safe, how is it that a plan for evacuation is for school children only—why not for the little children as well? Evacuation is unpopular in other ways. A false sense of security has been created by the provision of the Anderson shelters. People say, "We can hide in those, and we are not going to be divided from our children." Then when the specific question of compulsory evacuation has been put before these people they have actually said that they would resist it, even, if necessary, by physical force, rather than be separated from their children. I think a good deal of this is wrong, but one cannot escape the fact that there is that very strong opposition which has to be overcome before we can resort to compulsion. Of course, I must admit that if the Government say compulsion must be introduced, I think it would be carried out. I hope that the Minister will face it resolutely, and on his own responsibility. I could give another objection, which is semi-humorous. In a certain part of London some of the canvassers were met with this question, "When our children go away, where will you send them?"

5.5 p.m.

Whereupon the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, The Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and having returned, Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to:
1. National Service (Channel Islands) Act, 1940.
2. Post Office and Telegraph Act, 1940.
3. Superannuation Schemes (War Service) Act, 1940.
4. Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1940.
5. Evidence and Powers of Attorney Act, 1940.


6. Poor's Allotments in Hornsey Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1940.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Blackburn) Act, 1940.
8. Birmingham Corporation Act, 1940.
9. Coventry Corporation Act, 1940.
10. Cornwall Electric Power Act, 1940.
11. London County Council (Money) Act, 1940.
12. South Suburban Gas Act, 1940.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for measures in England and Wales to deal with casualties and disease, for expenses connected with evacuation, for repair of war damage and for other services arising out of the war.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I was saying that one of our difficulties was to overcome the prejudices in the minds of people. For instance, the officials have been asked in some cases where the children were going, and whether they were going to Wales. When they were told that some would go to Wales, the astonishing answer was that they had seen the film based on Dr. Cronin's book, "The Stars Look Down," and that they looked upon Wales as a country of famine, and were not prepared to send their children there.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Might I point out that the bulk of the scenes shown in that film are in Durham, and not in South Wales? I might add that those who are sent to South Wales often do not want to come home again.

Mr. Ammon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but one cannot make these people realise that. Another thing which parents ask is whether there are adequate means of protection at the places to which the children are to be sent. In that, they are to a certain extent fortified by the fact that the children have been recently brought back from places to which they were evacuated where there

was no protection. In some cases there have been munitions factories, for instance, laid down in these areas, turning them into targets, so that the children might find themselves in a much worse position than before.
When we are discussing this problem of evacuation and all that it involves, as the Minister has indicated, you cannot ignore the children who are left behind. In the light of the fact that the majority of the children would be left at home, what is to happen? This impinges, of course, on the domain of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, but it is undoubtedly bound up with this matter of evacuation. What is to happen to those children's education? If evacuation is to take away both the teachers and a percentage of the scholars, there is no provision, so far as we can see, for those children who are left to carry on their educational life. We know that, because of evacuation, large numbers of children have had no education since last September. It might be that, arising out of this very problem of evacuation and the other problems created by evacuation, children will go nearly the whole of their school life, if the war continues for any considerable time, without receiving any education whatever. That problem cannot be ignored. It is true that the schools were thrown open recently, but an education officer across the bridge said to me that one of the greatest disappointments he had ever had in his life was the fact that, when the children had been trained so much to appreciate the schools that it was felt that they would be gladly flocking back to them, that was found, in fact, not to be the case. Now, at a time when it was thought that the school attendance officer might be abolished, that officer has to start his work all over again.

The Chairman: I think it is time that I called the attention of the Committee to the limits of this Debate. The reference which the hon. Member made to education was quite permissible, but he was getting, perhaps, to the full extent of, or beyond, what I think would be relevant to this question when he came to refer to the education officer. In so far as these matters come under the Board of Education, or the Vote for Education, they cannot be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. Ammon: Of course, one cannot think of challenging your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but that Ruling indicates that these Votes ought to be taken together. Limitations are imposed upon us which, in fact, make it impossible for us to consider adequately the very Vote before us. That, of course, is not the fault of the Chair.

The Chairman: Perhaps I had better explain the position, so that I may not be misunderstood. I agree completely that the effect upon education is a matter which has to be taken into consideration by those responsible for the evacuation, but I should also say that, so far as it may fall within my province, I am not sure that I should look with great favour upon the putting down of the Votes of two entirely different Ministries for them to be discussed together.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We know—I from the reception end and other hon. Members from the evacuation end—that the whole educational system is deeply involved in this matter. In the reception areas every education authority is deeply involved. Surely it is not only desirable but essential that the question for Debate should be so wide as to enable hon. Members to discuss both these matters, which cannot be properly considered separately.

The Chairman: It is quite clear to me that what the hon. Member has said about the importance of this question of education—which I fully recognise—is entirely in support of what I said. We can discuss to-day only one particular side of the problem, namely, that which comes under the Ministry of Health, and the education side of it, which, the hon. Member said, is so important, should in case of need have a Debate to itself on another day. We must keep the two distinct.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the principal difficulty the fact that if we were discussing the education problem separately, on the Education Vote, we should not be able to discuss the transport side of evacuation or the principle of evacuation at all? Therefore, we should have to discuss, in separate watertight compartments, two subjects which hang together, and which cannot properly be separated.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not make a speech on this subject. I do not see the difficulty.

Mr. Ammon: Having had another rest, I will pursue my argument. I believe that our Scottish friends have the advantage that they can discuss these two things together. While it is true that our discussion has turned mainly on the question of the evacuation of children, we must bear in mind that teachers also are evacuated, and we cannot ignore the position which will be created by the evacuation scheme. When the children are turned into the reception areas they will impose a pretty great strain on the school accommodation, and I hope that some of the mistakes which were made on the last occasion will not be repeated. For instance, there was the absurd position that, because there might be one or two children from an evacuation area in a reception area, those children were segregated, with their teachers, from the rest. I hope that whoever is responsible—I dare not refer to the Board of Education—will see that the children fit into the school arrangements, and come under the education authorities in the reception areas. That will surely give an opportunity—I do not know how far I am wandering now over the strict line—to the mass of children who will remain behind to receive their education in the proper manner. In the Manchester report, for instance, it was said that it was found necessary in special cases to absorb Manchester classes into existing classes alongside the children of the reception area.

The Chairman: Clearly, that is a matter which does not come under this Vote. Unfortunately, the temptation to refer to such matters is one which hon. Members cannot resist when they see the Minister of Education in his place, but I could not allow him to talk about his duties on this Vote.

Mr. Ammon: It is difficult to resist the temptation, not only because the Minister is gracing the Front Bench opposite, but because one would wish him to clear up the position in this connection. It is difficult, and I know that many Members really want to raise particularly the point which arises out of the problem of education and which, to a very large extent, is ruled out by the rules of order. Owing


to the experience we have had in the former evacuations, some of the faults are to a large extent being recognised, especially by the withdrawal of children from the East Coast and the South-east Coast. I hope that the Minister and those responsible will take precautions to see that children are not sent to areas which afterwards may become even more dangerous targets by reason of the erection of munition works, etc., than the areas from which the children have been withdrawn.
The Department has issued a number of circulars containing many excellent precepts, but it is not sufficient to be content with these good intentions. We want a Minister—and I hope we have him in the present Minister—who will follow them up with sufficient drive and energy in order to get the job properly done. I was a little shaken when I heard that the Minister was beginning to hide behind certain excuses by saying that certain steps could not be taken in face of public opinion. A good many things have been done and are being done, especially in the industrial field, in the face of public opinion, and people are sacrificing a good deal. The time may come when evacuation may have to be made compulsory, and it will not be made any the easier because we have allowed the position to drift as we seem to have done. I hope that the Minister will face up to these difficulties and will endeavour to realise the fact that the evacuation of one child in four of the school population in a crowded district is not an evacuation scheme proper, but one which tends to intensify the trouble rather than to solve it.

5.33 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: I do not want to say much upon evacuation, because a good deal has been said about it, and I desire to devote chief attention to the other subject we are discussing to-day of civil emergency hospitals. But I have had special experience in a reception area of a nursery school which we have had in my house since the beginning of September. I feel strongly upon the question of the separation of nursery children under five years of age from their parents. The way in which the poorest of parents spend the small amount of money they have in order to come and

see their children when possible on a Sunday—to come 20 miles is a considerable effort on their part—has proved, together with many other things, how even men who appear to be the least responsive to the more tender feelings in life really show very great parental affection for their children, which it would be very difficult for them to forgo; and it would be wrong for them to forgo it. Whatever the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) may have said about compulsion, I feel equally strongly in the opposite direction. The terrible choice of the wife between going out to be with her children and staying with her husband at the place of his work is an almost impossible one for her to make. I quite understand these parents saying that they infinitely prefer to have their children with them, hoping that their particular attention and attachment to their children will in actual fact afford greater protection, even in the midst of bombing raids and so on, than if the children were sent into the country away from their parents. They are not at all sure that the balance, from the point of view of safety, especially in the case of invasion, would be on the side of their being evacuated to the country.
The question of education does not come into the consideration of nursery children up to the age of five, because their natural life out in the fields is the most perfect education that these children could receive. They do not want anything else so long as they are properly tended and looked after. They are splendidly tended and looked after. No words of mine can exaggerate the tribute that ought to be paid to the staff, some of them paid and some of them voluntary, who have given up night and day to look after these little brats, who are extremely troublesome though at the same time very charming. That tribute ought to be paid to those who have taken so prominent a part in the evacuation of these children. Evacuation has been of enormous advantake to the health of children of that age. The appreciation that they have of the country is wonderful. A teacher told me the other day that one of these little children, aged three, who came from the slums near King's Cross, looking out on the west side at the setting sun, suddenly opened its arms and exclaimed, "Look, isn't it lovely?" That kind of appreciation could never have been seen in


the same kind of way in the streets of London. I am certain that sort of thing will develop in the children and will be an asset for life.
I pass to the question of the hospitals. There are many who would say that it is a great mistake for the military cases to be mixed up with the civil cases in the one system of civil hospitals. It certainly is against the grain for the Army medical services, and they all feel, and most probably the military officers would feel, that the men lose a great deal through being in civil hospitals and not under military discipline for that period. I believe the Government made a right decision in 1938–39 when they had to decide whether to expand the military hospitals to the extent they were expanded in the last war and similarly to expand the civil hospitals enormously for casualties which they could not possibly estimate in advance. They decided to have a system which obviously must be based on the civil authorities under the local authorities. I believe that that is perfectly right, and there is only the exception of a few limited military hospitals and one or two of the standing hospitals of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. There are certain definite disadvantages about it. These have come out very clearly in the last six or seven months. These civil hospitals run by a civilian staff, imported as a rule from London or other cities, have been developed under the aegis of the local authority, and more especially of the county council. They have to deal with the different local authorities concerned as well as with the military authorities when there are military patients. It is natural, as there is a considerable number of military patients coming into the hospitals, to have a military register, and a great deal of military discipline has to be enforced by the military officers. That has introduced a difficult division of authority in the hospitals.
Representations have been made from the civil side and the management of these hospitals that it would be a great advantage if the senior officers were given definite military rank, status and uniform so that they might be recognised. I do not think there is a great deal in it, but it is found by the administrators to be a very delicate question in the relationship between the civil authority, and the mili-

tary officers, who may have the right to come into institutions owned and run by the civil authority. But apart from the question of the military authority and the civil authority, one must realise how this democratic system has introduced such great complications into our hospital system. You have the civil hospital probably under the county council, and also, very often, under a Poor Law institution, and so it has to consider also the Poor Law authority. It has to consider the local authority of the district, and above all to appeal to the Ministry of Health, who have such a tremendous field to cover that they cannot directly interfere with the local administration. And yet their authority is required in the long run. When it is convenient, the Ministry of Health can always say that the matter must be referred to the local authorities, and when the local authorities try to intervene it is said that they are under the rule of the Ministry of Health, and other bodies concerned, including the contractors for the building of the huts necessary for the additions to these hospitals. This is a most complicated business.
It is the natural development of the democratic system under which we live. Now that we are fighting a war we want to get a move on, and it is time that greater pressure was used on the public authorities concerned. I am certain that many authorities are doing their utmost. In a great many hospitals they are able to get their own way by much tact and experience, but in others a good deal more pressure is required. The matter ought to be brought home to many of these different authorities that unless they get a move on quickly they will have their hands forced. I do not think that that would be necessary, but I believe that if it was brought home to them in the right kind of way, they would get a move on.

Mr. Charles Brown: It is the Department who will not let the local authorities move quickly.

Sir F. Fremantle: I do not think that the Department is slow in taking up matters in so far as we have had reference to the Ministry of Health. This is where the totalitarian or despotic system is undoubtedly an advantage, and as the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) himself suggested, it might be necessary to use a great deal of com-


pulsion, or, in other words, totalitarian methods. That comes from the opposite side of the Committee, and I also agree that it is necessary in this emergency to use these stronger methods even in such matters as health. There is one particular point that I want to bring home to the Committee, and that is the need for the development of up-to-date methods. It is difficult to apportion blame, but many patients who have come back from the Front have not had the advantage of up-to-date treatment, and their convalescence has, therefore, been delayed. By up-to-date methods I mean what is called physical medicine, which includes massage in its different forms, surgical manipulation, electric treatment, shortwave diathermy, active convalescence and occupational therapy. These different methods are used in the modern way of treating surgical and minor ailments. I received a pamphlet only yesterday afternoon from a senior medical officer in France who is himself one of the best known physicians in London in dealing with rheumatic diseases. The pamphlet was a paper which he read to the local medical society in France on the treatment of rheumatic diseases in the B.E.F.—

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister of Health responsible for hospitals in France?

Sir F. Fremantle: No, he is not. This pamphlet shows how enormously important are these cases which come to civil hospitals in England from the B.E.F. These modern methods do exist in many hospitals in England, but not in many others. Massage exists in some form or other but is not sufficiently developed or organised to be of real value according to the high ideals of the society with which it is particularly connected. Equipment has been lacking in many of these hospitals, and the difficulty really arises not so much from the lack of provision by the Ministry of Health, but from the fact that they have offered services, and payments for these services, to local hospitals which have not been willing to accept the offers and start a department for this kind of treatment. Many Members in this Committee know of cases, where treatment has been going on month after month and year after year, which might have been prevented by this modern treatment. I had an instance of it myself. A youth came back

from the B.E.F. with a simple fracture of the shin sustained while playing football overseas. He came to a hospital here in England, and his leg was put in plaster, and already four months have gone by and he has not yet returned to duty. This is a matter where there has been failure to apply the modern method of treatment.
I would like to know why it is that there are many specialists engaged in this work in peace-time all over the country and are not being fully employed at the present time. The complaint of these men—and we have seen it in the newspapers in the last week or two—is that they are not being sufficiently used, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, when she comes to reply, will tell us to what extent the Ministry proposes to use these offers of help. Perhaps she will also tell us whether it is the Ministry's intention to try and get an advance in the provision of a proper department of massage and physical medicine in every hospital throughout the country which is under the charge of the Ministry. Delay has been caused not only by the Ministry but also through medical officers themselves. I am in a profession of which I am proud, but at the same time it is conservative and is slow to take up new ideas, although perhaps that is sound, because hon. Gentlemen opposite, who scream for new ideas, are protected from experiments which might otherwise be dangerous. At the same time this line of medicine, instead of being new, goes back to the early ages, and we shall have to overcome the methods of the last century, when every fracture was put into a solid block of plaster and there was passive, instead of active, treatment. There are many specialists employed in hospitals who are trying to get a move on with this new method of treatment, but it does seem that you have also to get ordinary medical officers and those in charge to get a move on.
I hope the Ministry will see that definite instructions are sent round to those in charge of patients to get this kind of treatment adopted and will also provide the equipment, machinery and personnel which are necessary in order to reduce pain, the extension of disease and the period of disability, so that men can be made fit for livelihood and service and that there can be a reduced amount payable in pensions.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Richards: I do not intend to follow what the hon. Member has just been saying about hospitals, although lately I have had the opportunity, as a mere layman, of seeing how well some of them are functioning. I was impressed by the transformation which has taken place in one or two Poor Law hospitals that I know of and how well members of the B.E.F. in them are being treated. I did not find, as the hon. Member seemed to find, that there was any conflict at all between the lay element and the medical element. In fact, I was surprised to see how they had managed to switch over so quickly and do such splendid work for the men we are anxious to serve.
I would like to say a word or two—and will do my best to keep within the Rules of Debate—about this question of evacuation. I am sure we were all impressed by the Minister's clear account of the principles on which the Government are attempting to work in this very difficult matter. It is very satisfactory to feel that the thing is being worked out logically so far as can be done. After all, it is important that we should have principles in these things. I remember that there was some controversy some years ago concerning an eminent politician of whom it was said that he had no principles at all and was living up to them very well indeed. I think we can say about the Minister of Health in this particular matter that he has very definite principles on which he is proceeding and will, I am sure, do his best to live up to them.
It seems to me that the question of evacuation as he outlined it naturally divides itself into two parts. There is, first of all, compulsory evacuation, which would be entirely dictated by military considerations. When the military authorities inform the Ministry of Health that a certain part of the country is becoming too dangerous, then we may visualise compulsory evacuation taking place, as far as possible, in that part of the country. I was interested to read the other day an article, by one who is presumed to be some kind of authority, in which there was outlined the strategy which the Germans will be supposed to follow when they attempt to conquer this country. The writer pointed out that the first attempt would be to encircle London from the Wash on one side to the Thames

Estuary on the other—the kind of thing being attempted now, I believe, round Paris. If that evil day ever comes, and we hope it never will, the question of compulsory evacuation will, of course, have to be faced at once. But we are not only dealing with that question; we are dealing with other kinds of evacuation. There are other classes which ought to be considered. What about the old and in firm and the blind? There must be many people whose nervous system will certainly be wrecked if anything of this kind does take place in the areas from which children have been removed.
On the question of evacuation itself, I would like to look at it from the point of view of the reception areas, because in the last few months I have had some considerable experience in watching the thing from that end. There are one or two matters which I think ought to be guarded against very carefully. There is the question of the health of these children. The experiment of last autumn, made in the face of great difficulties, revealed that a great many children were not in a fit condition to leave their homes. That set up a current of opinion against them. Imagine a quarryman or a smallholder in South Wales whose home as a rule is scrupulously clean, finding he has to take into his house three or four children who are not exactly up to the standard to which he has been accustomed in the past. The blame there would seem to me to lie largely with the medical officers of health in the boroughs from which the children were sent, and I respectfully suggest that very great care indeed should be taken to see that children are not again sent away in an improper condition of health.
There are one or two important reasons for that from our point of view. The first is that medical services in rural counties from many points of view are only just adequate—many of us feel they are inadequate—to deal with the local population. If you get an influx of children who are suffering from some kind of disease and who are certainly dirty in body, it places a tremendous strain on the medical services of these comparatively poor counties. I could refer to counties where there is no provision at all for isolation, where they have no isolation hospital of any kind. It is, therefore, a serious matter from that point of view. I must not, I gather, say any-


thing about the question of education, but it is a question of vital importance from the point of view of these small communities. There is another problem which was raised in the case of North Wales when they came on the first occasion. I think the danger was exaggerated, but there was in some quarters a kind of outcry because the children were threatening what was called Welsh culture. The Welsh language in the countryside is very virile, and it was felt that there was a danger in having so many thousands of English children suddenly thrust on the countryside. The danger was exaggerated out of all proportion, and no damage, indeed, was done. But that aspect of the life of the Welsh people should be considered when sending children to particularly Welsh parts of the country. The Welshman is very chary indeed of welcoming anything which is going, as he thinks, to undermine the culture which he has retained under great difficulties for so many centuries.
There is one other question closely related to this—the question of religion. I do not want to enter into the difficult question of religions and the conflict of religious views, but I felt that it was a great hardship on some of these small children who happen to be Catholics to find themselves in exclusively Nonconformist surroundings. They found it very difficult to attend a service of the Catholic Church. I think that was very unfair, but it was equally unfair to the people who acted as their hosts. These are slight points, but if any more children are to come into North Wales, I suggest that the Minister should get into consultation with the Board of Education and endeavour to minimise the difficulties as far as possible. On the general question, I should only like to add that the Welsh people will again be very happy to receive these little children. They consider it a great privilege to take part in what may be of vital importance to the future of the race, and will accept and welcome any children whom the Government may care to send.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: I rise not to make a speech, but to enter a protest. What the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards) referred to at the end of his speech is intimately related to what I want to say. I do not know under what

Vote it comes; the nearest I can get to it is the Vote of the Board of Education. What I want to say seems to lie somewhere between several Government Departments. Time after time in this House we have been faced with problems which lie between various Departments. At the present moment we are facing a problem which it is quite impossible to discuss properly under this Vote. You might just as well put down the Vote of the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Shipping. The thing which was a complete success in the last evacuation was the machinery to get people from one place to another; it was a brilliant piece of work. Nobody can speak to-night without thinking about the critical issues of the war and what is going on in Paris. I am only concerned to get children into places of greater safety and to continue their education, either there or in the Dominions. If I go into the question of the feeding of the children, the arrangements for their reception, the helpers and teachers, all these are questions related to the Board of Education and the Board of Education Vote.
The one thing which is distinctly under the Ministry of Health is camps, and I have myself protested against this on more than one occasion. It is a scandal that the question of these camps and the education in them should still be under the Minister of Health. Here we have a most important experiment in connection with the poorer children, with all sorts of problems arising which are entirely educational, but which are still under a Ministry which, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend, is not competent to deal with such problems. I believe it was a mistake from the beginning, but that has nothing to do with my right hon. Friend. It was settled in advance, and settled because we were considering the large number of persons who were going to be evacuated. In the last plan of evacuation we were concerned entirely with school children, and the people who understand school children are those in the Board of Education and particularly in our local education authorities. Therefore, the questions I should like to ask this afternoon cannot be answered, because they relate to the arrangements which are being made by the education authorities in Devon and Dorset and elsewhere for the continued education of the children.


It really is extremely serious that after nine months of war we have a number of children in certain parts of the country who are still without any education. I want to know from the Minister what is to happen to the 300,000 children in London? Are the schools going to close? If the schools are to be closed, I take it that you are using the threat of no education in London to get the children out into the country.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): These questions cannot be answered by the Minister. They can only be answered by the President of the Board of Education and are, therefore, out of Order.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not wish to continue my speech. I have made my protest. I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal, whose responsibility it is to see that the arrangements which are being made between these various Departments—

The Deputy-Chairman: Again the Lord Privy Seal does not come under this Vote, and the hon. Member cannot ask that question.

Mr. Lindsay: Then may I ask the Minister of Health to convey to the Lord Privy Seal the points which I have tried to make this afternoon? Much as I admire the clarity of the case which the right hon. Gentleman made for compulsory evacuation, I think the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) was right in the case she put. It is a case which is based on an intimate knowledge of the teachers and children of the country, a knowledge which cannot be shared by the right hon. Gentleman, who has been absorbed in the Empire for the last six or seven years. It is a case based on experience given to the hon. Member for East Islington, and it is only from a knowledge of what the teachers and the children are likely to do that you can make out a case for or against compulsion. The problem of the schoolchildren is much more closely related to the Department of Education. The same is true in regard to evacuation overseas. I am extremely glad that a committee has been set up with four Ministers upon it, and a whole band of Civil servants. The important thing at the moment is to get into touch with practical people who have a knowledge of overseas migration, like Major Bevin, of

the Y.M.C.A., and people connected with other bodies who are themselves in touch with thousands of families in Canada and Australia. I hope that this committee, which is presided over by the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions, will treat this matter as one of great urgency. There are several thousands of parents, to my knowledge, who are willing for their children to go and who can afford to pay. It is, therefore, most important that in the case of the many other thousands of parents who wish them to go arrangements should be made at the earliest possible moment.

The Deputy-Chairman: Again I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. Member. That is a matter for the Dominions Office and not for the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Lindsay: I rather hoped that I should be interrupted, because it helps me to make my point. This question of the movement of children into the reception areas in this country or overseas is one which must be dealt with by one Department. As long as we have a separate Debate on the Dominions, another Debate on the Board of Education, another Debate on the Ministry of Health or on shipping and transport, we shall never get a complete view of the problem. It must be looked at as a whole, and as one of the most serious problems which faces this country. It is a problem which is undoubtedly related to the question of home and Civil Defence.

6.14 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: The Debate is an admirable example of the way in which the House of Commons is hampered when there is no official Opposition to arrange a Debate. Everybody wanted a Debate on the general question of evacuation. For that a number of Departments are responsible. Obviously you cannot get such a Debate on the Vote of any particular Ministry. It must not be taken on a Supply day, but we could have debated it on the Adjournment of the House or on the Consolidated Fund Bill. To-day we are narrowed down in our Debate to certain limits, but I think we can put before the Government what we believe to be an increasingly urgent case. Frankly, I am not interested in the educational side. I am thinking far more of the general issue


of evacuation. We have seen all over the conquered countries the spectacle of masses of refugees blocking the roads, but we have not yet realised the effect of a refugee population upon the fighting Army.
Imagine for one moment that this country is invaded. Every man who is worth his salt will be engaged either in the field, or in some munition factory far from his family. All the time, they will be desperately anxious about what is happening to their wives and children and parents. I do not blame the Belgians for surrendering, and I should not blame the French if they had surrendered. What is an Army to do when they see those dismal columns of helpless women and children and when they think that their own women and children may be among such crowds, being mercilessly machine-gunned while starving and dropping and dying of exhaustion by the roadside? If that is the fate of their womenkind, you cannot expect an Army to fight. Therefore, this problem of evacuation is a very real one and does not apply solely to children. It applies to all the useless mouths in every country which is meeting this new form of gangster warfare.
I wonder whether any hon. Members ever cast their minds back to the days of the third century of this era. At that time the world saw—and not for the first time, even then—the same thing as is now before our eyes. Then you had hordes from Asia sweeping down and pressing upon the Goths and Vandals in South Russia. The Goths and Vandals, flying before the Huns fell upon their next-door neighbours—the Alemanni, the Saxons, the Burgundians—and drove them on, and the Saxons and Burgundians, themselves driven onwards, were forced to go to the seas or overland and they in their turn attacked the Celts and the Roman Empire. You have to-day exactly the same kind of great national movements as that which used to be called the Völkerwanderung. That is being repeated before our eyes to-day, not by the armies but by these masses of refugees. Those who are driven from Northern France may settle in Southern France and those who are driven out of France altogether may settle in Spain, but the movement is going on and we cannot play our part properly in this war,

unless we realise that, just as the Saxons came to this country and drove the Celts into the hills, so we to-day are in danger of a new band of pirates and assassins coming to this country and seeking to drive us west.
I want the Committee to look at this immediate aspect of the war and to consider it on the wide lines of the movements of peoples and to lay our plans here accordingly, so that what happened to the world of the Roman Empire, and what may happen over the rest of Europe, shall not happen here. The best way to stop it is to enable our men to fight with their sword arms free, without having their dependants, the women and the children and the old, clinging to them and tugging at their heart strings. This believe me, is not a question of evacuating some children to Devonshire. It is not even a question of the compulsory evacuation of all children; it is a much bigger question—a question of how we can best defend this country and save civilisation and how the Ministry of Health can help us. I know now that even though France may go, we shall not surrender. In the Prime Minister's great words the other night, the rest of us will fight on
until in God's good time the new world, in all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and liberation of the old."—[Official Report, 4th June, 1940; col. 800, Vol. 361.]
I believe that we need not wait so very long; but the help which the new world can give is not only that of aeroplanes and tanks, not only fighting men, but also the saving of the race, and providing a refuge for our useless mouths. We have been talking about the Dominions helping in the case of the children, but I believe that we could get infinitely greater help from the United States of America. The United States have something of a guilty conscience. They feel that they have left the job hitherto to us; I believe they would jump at the opportunity of saving the race and saving it not only from extinction, for there are worse things than extinction. The terrible thing about this new religion is its resemblance in its spread to the Mohammedan religion. The conquered countries are not merely conquered; they are converted, and a generation of children in Belgium, in Denmark, in Scandinavia will grow up into the most perfect Nazis. I would far sooner that


the children of this country never grew up, than that they should grow up with the slave mentality of the Hun and with no religion save the religion of brute force. America can save us from that infamy.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that these references to America are outside the scope of the Vote. I have already pulled up other hon. Members who were referring to the Dominions because what they were saying had more application to the Dominions Office Vote than to this Vote. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is raising now seems to be a matter for the Foreign Office and to have nothing to do with the Ministry of Health.

Colonel Wedgwood: It is to the Ministry of Health that I appeal. The Ministry of Health can take the first step. The Ministry of Health can find out who is willing to go and where they are willing to go. The Ministry of Health can arrange whether evacuation should be compulsory or voluntary. The Ministry of Health can deal with all the initial stages of this problem. The Foreign Office cannot do so. This is not a question for the Foreign Office. It is for the Ministry of Health to arouse the conscience of the civilised world by showing to them that the best way to save the fighting Army of this country is to preserve their dependants from worse than death.

6.26 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I wish to confine my remarks to the subject which I know best, and that is the position of the emergency hospitals in London. The manner of conducting the emergency medical services in London has been, perhaps, the most criticised of the measures which have been carried out by the Ministry in the last nine months. I do not wish to conduct a post-mortem examination in that respect, otherwise than to refer to certain indications of activity which I think are rather lamentable and which I hope will not be further pursued. The state of mind in which the Ministry of Health began its operations in London is, of course, quite obscured by the interval which took place between 1938, when there was the first alarm of the possibility of war, and a few weeks ago. That lull was unexpected but the position of affairs in 1928 was very comparable to the position which is now confronting us

except that there is much more realism at present than was the case perhaps in 1938. If I may give a description by a celebrated writer of what that attitude was, I think it will help the Committee to understand where we are at the present time.
It was generally believed that a first class air raid might kill 50,000 and wound 300,000 more; that there was no real defence and that an attack might occur at any moment.
That produced what this writer has, I think very justly, described as a state of panic—panic, in the psychological sense of the mass production of emotion rather than in the sense of individual emotion. The steps taken in 1938 and afterwards under the influence of mass emotion were very remarkable. They were taken in the anticipation of an immediate air attack. The unprecedented step was taken of conscripting the staffs and personnel of the voluntary hospitals which constitute the core of the medical administration in London. They were called upon, at very short notice, to undertake full-time service under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. That immediately destroyed the whole system of hospital practice in this country. In London in particular it destroyed the long-built-up methods of medical consulting practices, and it created an exceedingly dangerous and unfortunate position with regard to the treatment of the civilian population. There are 10,000,000 attendances every year, in out-patient departments in London, and from that figure it will be seen how important this service is to the community. That was at once practically wiped out, and the state of affairs which has followed may, perhaps, be illustrated if I give the Committee some figures. As late as April last, in one of the largest hospitals in London, St. Bartholomew's, out of 780 beds, only 145 were being used for the civilian population.
The scheme was based on the fallacious conception that the best treatment for war casualties could be found, not in London, but in the periphery, 10 or 20 miles out. It was supposed that cases could be transported and would be dealt with outside London by the most skilled personnel from London. Its effect was the destruction of the hospital service for the civilian sick in the Metropolis. Naturally, it created a great deal of dissatisfaction both with the public and


among the staffs who found the whole of their lives broken up and their professional careers arrested, and very speedily it was found necessary to bring some of them back to treat the civilian sick. In the first scheme, seven-eighths of the whole of the personnel of London was absorbed. It was a deprivation, not only of medical service to the State, but also it meant a complete cessation of medical education for students. London, it must be remembered, is responsible for more than half of the medical education given in this country. For all these reasons it will be seen that the effect of these measures was very disastrous. I do not wish, however, to review the past too severely; but I am very much concerned with the future. I beg the Committee to realise how very real and urgent is this problem. If we have air raids in London, they may take place in a very few days, and probably will be on a very large scale.
I submit that the conception I have cited was entirely wrong, and that treatment can best be given centrally. It was due, I think, to complete lack of co-ordination that this decision was taken in the first place. There were no fewer than 10 committees which the Minister consulted from time to time, and it was always possible to say that this or that committee was responsible for the decision taken. There was really a welter of advice. I am very pleased to know that the Minister will not rely so completely on committees in future, but that he will have a first-class, small executive body with first-hand knowledge with which to consult. It has been a disastrous past, but I do not wish to dwell on that further. In October of last year, a very celebrated Spanish surgeon, Professor Trueta, came to England and gave an address to the Royal Society of Medicine, in which he gave an account of his experiences gained in over 340 air-raids on Barcelona. He was chief of a surgical clinic in the largest hospital in Barcelona, and his account of the surgical methods necessary to deal with air-raid casualties created something like a revolution in medical opinion in this country. His was the first report that we had of actual experience of modern war casualties in a great city. His point was that anything but immediate attention upon the site where injury occurred was useless in treating casualties. Unless injuries re-

ceived attention within a few minutes, it was very often quite useless, and for that attention highly skilled personnel was necessary.
Having listened to that lecture, I put a Question down to the Minister of Health, on 14th December, and asked him to take note of that pronouncement. I begged him to revise the arrangements by which nearly all the experienced surgeons were waiting for casualties in centres remote from London. His answer was that the steps had been taken in general agreement with the profession, and that he saw no reason for altering it. That, I hope, is not the attitude of the present Minister. In London provision is made for the reception of casualties by the great voluntary hospitals. Unfortunately, in the first arrangement officers were appointed for each group, and these men were given practically a free hand in the arrangements to be made. It was not altogether a happy arrangement. I know of a hospital which has 2,000 odd beds, which are divided into four sections of 500 each. The principal officers in charge of these sections were, two who were specialists for women's diseases, one an eye specialist, and one an ear, nose and throat specialist. That kind of selection seems rather curious, and it is unfortunate that a good many of the appointments were unsatisfactory in that respect. Some of the machinery will have to be overhauled, and overhauled in the near future.
The arrangements for treating patients in London hospitals are largely under the control of the sector officers. The professor who gave this lecture pointed out that injuries could be divided into two classes—one due to bombs and one due to injuries from falling masonry. Again, he divided the injuries from bombs into different classes. The type of bomb which is generally used for large cities, especially where the houses are built of brick and not wood, is a small explosive bomb. They explode and burst into minute splinters dispersed in a centrifugal manner, and the splinters are driven at enormous speed into the structures they hit. The result, it was pointed out, was that the lower part of the body, the legs and the abdomen, usually suffered injury. A patient, in these circumstances, often thought he had suffered little injury, but the experience of this surgeon in Barcelona was that unless these splinters


were extracted within an hour, the patient very often died. It was found that immediate attention is required unless 40 or 50 per cent. of the casualties are to be fatal. What is required is a first-class organisation in hospitals to deal with casualties. It is no good unskilled persons being in charge of first-aid posts. Not only is it useless, but it is mischievous. First-aid centres must not be outside hospitals, but inside hospitals, where the cases can be vetted.
Recently I inspected the services offered at one of the hospitals. Instead of having the skilled personnel to receive the casualties, as advised in the paper of the Spanish doctor to whom I have referred, the personnel who will sort out casualties consisted of three junior medical officers of the status of a registrar. None of the three has had any surgical experience. For further treatment the casualties will be handed from the receiving room to an adjoining room, where there are six surgeons with six operating tables, and they will have to operate as best they can in the circumstances. In Trueta's hospital there were 60 doctors, and they were driven to the point of exhaustion by the insistent calls on their services. It is impossible to suggest that the arrangements I have sketched are in any way adequate preparation for what we may experience. I spoke to one of the most experienced surgeons on the staff and asked why he was not in this team, and he said that he had to go to a peripheral hospital to look after something there. The six persons chosen for that duty are not the most experienced surgeons.
It is, I submit, a wholly erroneous method of preparing for what we may have to experience, and some alteration should immediately be made. I foresee very terrible consequences in the near future unless it is done. I asked my young colleagues this morning whether they had had any experience of surgical casualties, and one said that he remembered they had to deal with a motor smash, at a provincial hospital, when 40 casualties came in at once, and they spent the best part of the night looking after them. I said, "What are you going to do if you have 400?"Cannot the Minister get a move on and alter that situation, so as to get the most skilled people back to London where the injuries will

take place? In a previous Debate it was said that there were 300 Green Line buses to take the casualties out of London. It is impossible to envisage the transport of seriously injured persons. Moreover, during an air raid it will be impossible to traverse the roads. The experience at Barcelona was that the roads were machine-gunned, and the machine-gunning of ambulances was a considerable factor in the mortality which occurred. It is useless, therefore, to expect to be able to transport persons with grave injury any distance. The transport will have to be restricted to cases which have been treated by the receiving officers in the hospitals or to those which it is possible to transport for convalescence. The idea of transporting wounded persons is all wrong, and I hope it will be abandoned.
In the system of first-aid posts which are described in the White Paper in July, 1939, it was said that it would be possible to have a doctor in charge of each post. Let me say that the doctor in charge of first aid in these circumstances will not be in any way competent to deal with this class of injury. He is totally unfamiliar with it, and unless there is a first-class team this kind of casualty cannot be dealt with properly. I hope that the first-aid post envisaged on these lines will be reviewed and the precaution taken that no casualty will be regarded as trivial until it has been seen and pronounced upon by experienced workers and not by one inexperienced practitioner. I would like to express my own personal regret that the voluntary system at hospitals was abandoned so largely by the Minister in 1939. A great institution like a voluntary hospital knows its own business of looking after serious cases better than any organisation improvised for the purpose by a Government Department. That has, I submit, been one of the reasons for the disasters that have followed. In the last war the British medical service was singled out as being the best service of all the belligerent armies by the expert sent over by the Rockefeller Foundation after the war, who had himself been familiar with other services as well. Our service remained on a voluntary basis throughout the war and exemplified the best traditions of service at our great hospitals.

6.54 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) in any detail. I am surprised to hear that there still exist members of the medical profession who support the voluntary system so wholeheartedly that they feel that it cannot be improved by a Government Department. I hope that the Minister of Health will not take that too seriously. With reference to the Spanish doctor quoted by the hon. Gentleman, I am one of his humble admirers for what he did in Spain during the war, and I agree with a lot that the hon. Gentleman has said about his work, but I do not think it is practicable for us to say that there cannot be a first-aid post in any place except a hospital. Those of us who have a knowledge of the country and the medical service know that there are congested areas, particularly in London, which are far removed from a hospital of any kind. I do not see how it can be suggested that there should be no provision, except at a hospital, in those congested areas. Who would pick a casualty up and look after him? I would ask the hon. Gentleman, who discussed many technical details, who would apply the tourniquet to a casualty bleeding to death if there were no first-aid post at hand? That is the first essential. By the time somebody in the street had taken the casualty to a hospital any chance of survival might have disappeared if there were no first-aid post.

Sir E. Graham-Little: That is the exceptional case. The tourniquet might be applied by an ambulance man.

Dr. Summerskill: It is an important exception when you are bleeding to death. The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of bombs and the distribution of splinters, and said that it was essential that the splinters should be removed from a person within an hour. If a person with splinters in his legs is hanging about the streets, an hour soon goes and by the time an ambulance is called and arrives it may be too late to save him. I do not want to devote myself to the emergency medical service. You will, Colonel Clifton Brown, be glad to know that the two points about which I wish to speak are both entirely in order and are concerned with evacuation.
First, with regard to accommodation. Do not let us ignore the fact that the last

evacuation was not completely successful because the accommodation in the reception areas was not perfect. Is the Minister of Health entirely relying upon private houses again? I know that he will tell me he has given local authorities permission to open hostels, but has he given that permission generously? Has he told local authorities that if they find it difficult to get private people to take the children they can commandeer a house and open it as a hostel? It is important to be generous in this matter and not merely tell local authorities that in the last resort, if they cannot get people to take the children, they can take over a hostel.
I want to illustrate this point by a case which I brought to the Minister of Health when I led a deputation of irritated parents to him. Children from my constituency had been evacuated since the beginning of the war, the schooling was going well and everything in the garden was lovely in a lovely village. A few of the hosts in the big houses went to the billeting officer, and said, "We have had these children for three or four months; it is time we had a rest and that such and such a village six miles away had the children." The head teacher of the school said that if he could have a house in the neighbourhood he would run a hostel so that the hosts could have a rest, but in spite of my plea and the fact that I brought 20 or 30 of the parents to the Ministry of Health, the Minister said that the children would be moved. It may seem almost frivolous, but in one case the owner of a big house said, "If I keep these children any longer my cook will give notice." In country districts that kind of thing happens. Since then the Government have acquired powers over individuals, and I ask the new Minister of Health to be firm in this matter. If he has the power, let him use it. Let us take those large houses, if there is not accommodation in the villages, and use them as hostels. The excuse given to me was that it would cost too much. If we want to make this new evacuation scheme a success we must not cavil at the cost this time, because it will break down, exactly as the last one did, unless proper accommodation is provided.
The Minister opened his statement by discussing compulsory powers, Many people have come to me in the House and asked, "Are you for or against compulsion?" The Committee seems to have


rather divided itself on the point. I hope the Minister will not adopt drastic methods too early for this reason, that in the problem of evacuation the greatest difficulty with which he is faced is not accommodation in the reception areas, is not transport, is not schooling, but the fact that parents will not allow their children to go away. He says, "I have the trains, the local authorities are waiting to take the children, the schools are ready for them, but I cannot get the parents to say 'Yes'." I want to tell him, though I am sure he will not agree with me, why there has been this lack of response.
What is he asking these parents to do? When I say parents, it really means mothers, because it is generally the mother who has the last word. He is not asking them to pay a tax, he is not even asking them to pay Excess Profits Tax or join in A.R.P. duties or give up their time for war work; he is asking them to suppress the strongest instinct in any human being, and to part with their children. I feel that the Government have not realised the fundamental psychological problem which confronts them. Let me remind the Minister of the life of a working-class housewife. Her life has been one of drudgery from the time she got married, and when she thinks upon her life her only compensation, the only thing that makes her say, "Well, it has been worth while," is for her to look at her children. She has created them; she has fed them. In all those homes her life revolves around her children. Surely, then, the Minister should ask himself what is the best way to reach the mother. Some hon. Members may say of me, "She is only saying this because she is a woman." But that is not so. I am a mother who has evacuated her two children—they are now 150 miles away—and I am as fond of my children as any other mother. I do not know when I shall see them again.
The other night, when I decided to re-evacuate my children, because I thought they were not far enough away, and to send them to the borders of Wales, I thought I would listen to the Minister on the radio, because I was experiencing the same sensation as other mothers. I appreciated the attributes of the Minister, his lucidity, his fluency and so on, but what the Minister, and the whole Government, and the B.B.C., have not yet

realised is that on the radio they are now in contact not with a few women in their homes, the rest of the listeners being men, but that as every day passes the vast audience which the radio reaches is more and more composed of women. As the men are going to the Services and are doing overtime at night we shall find that soon almost the whole audience will be women. Yet what do women hear every night? Do they hear a woman who understands the problems of the war? No.
A stereotyped speech from a Minister does not reach a woman who is going to part with her children. I sat there receptive to the Minister, but he did not move me emotionally one iota, and that is not because I know him so well. He gave the speech of a statesman, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be speaking to the nation and saying, "Now I am going to put an extra tax on you." The Minister was speaking to women in a turmoil of emotion, to women saying to themselves, "The only thing in life that matters to me are my children running round me. They have my face, my hair, my eyes." And the Minister comes and says, in a statesmanlike way, "The train will leave on Thursday. You are to be evacuated. The teachers are ready, get things packed, put the tags on. It is the right thing to do." And then he goes on to explain that it is a question of dispersal, that if a bomb drops on a place in the country it will not kill so many people as if it drops in a crowded town.
Why do those women worry about that? They want you to come to them tenderly, compassionately. They want to hear women who have children and who have been in the reception areas. They want to hear teachers who have been faced with the problem saying, "Look here, mother, this is what you are being asked to do, and we promise that when we get there we will keep an eye on Bertie and Freddie." Some of these mothers are thinking, "Freddie has only one decent pair of trousers. How can I send him away to strangers"—mothers who know that that pair of trousers has to be washed every week end, because everyone knows that such things happen. And what about the mother who has a difficult child or the mother with a nervous child? Has she ever been approached over the radio? No, although millions of


those who are listening to the radio are women.
This point is not ignored by the Press. Much of what is written is written for women. Business men never ignore this aspect of the matter. They say, "It is the woman who spends the money, let us approach her." Yet the Government, faced with one of the biggest social problems which has ever been presented to any Government, has the sheer effrontery to put on before this huge audience of women every night one male statesman after another. Night after night a man's voice comes over the ether to all these women, with the same stereotyped speech. Honestly, I cannot understand it. Frankly, I feel slightly embarrassed, because after I had decided that this was the point that I would make, and as I was sitting here, a message came in, only five minutes before I was asked to speak, asking me if I would broadcast at one o'clock to-morrow. This is National Savings' Week and the B.B.C. have woke up to the fact that millions and millions of women, those who spend the money, have not yet been approached over the radio. I ask the Minister, before he takes this tremendous step of compulsion—honestly, I warn him about it—to take a long time to decide about it and to think a lot about it. A human mother's possessive feeling for her young is as strong as it is in animals.
I almost wish this were a private Session. I can visualise there being the most appalling scenes. I can visualise a mother locking her children in a room upstairs and going down to the front door as she would to face a parachutist, if necessary, with a rolling pin, and saying, "How dare you take my children?" That is not an exaggeration. I know women. I have worked among women. Perhaps women tell a woman doctor more secrets about their lives than they tell to anybody else, even to their husbands. They very often tell a woman doctor, in fact, what they think about their husbands. It is very easy for people to say that, if a particular area will not evacuate its children, we should make evacuation compulsory, but what a ridiculous thing that is to say. It is not as though you were talking about putting on a higher rate, or emptying the dustbins, or taking paper or bones out of the dustbins; you are telling people that you are

going to take their children away from them. A woman will do anything to protect her children. I well remember some of the things which happened during the first air-raid warning last year, and I remember also the pictures we saw of women who had thrown their bodies over their children when there was a little bit of a riot in Downing Street. That is the sort of thing you are up against.
To say that compulsory evacuation is simple is rather appalling, when you are dealing with the instinct of maternity which is as strong as that of self-preservation. Before the Minister accepts a policy of compulsion I ask him to make a new approach. Get women from the reception areas, teachers, kind women, women with children, women who understand the problem, and put them on the air. Let their voices go through to the kitchens of the nation where the women listen in. Then, I believe, you will get a different response.

7.13 p.m.

Major Braithwaite: I believe we all listened with very great interest to the speech of the Minister of Health this afternoon. He is particularly brilliant in defence. The problem of evacuation is one of the most urgent and far-reaching for the future of our country of any that we have to face. I am bitterly disappointed that the limitations of this Debate are so fine that we are not a position to discuss the subject in a more general way on this Vote. I would ask the Minister, first, how much advice the Ministry of Health had from the military authorities in connection with evacuation? Have they worked in the closest consultation, and do they believe that the people who live in the evacuation areas will be a hindrance to military operations? We have to face the sternfact that this country may be invaded at any moment. Those who have taken the trouble to read and to see as much as possible of what has taken place in other countries are afraid of what might happen in some of the areas unless more children are got away.
Everybody must have appreciated the speech of the hon. Lady who has just spoken. Her human appeal was needed at this moment. I know how much people hate parting from their children. I have sent my children to the United States, where I fortunately have a house, and I wish hundreds of thousands of


other children could go there at once. We have felt the separation from our children very much, knowing how far they are away, but we know they are safe and are cared for by a friendly people. The right hon. and gallant Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) and myself have received offers from thousands of people in the United States, coupled with millions of dollars, to support the arrival in that country of large numbers of children. I know that we cannot discuss the matter, and I do not want to encroach upon the Ruling of the Chair, but I cannot let this opportunity go without trying to let the country know how people in other parts of the world are thinking at this time.
In selecting reception areas, you should also consider the mentality of the people we are fighting. What is to happen if bombs drop on the reception areas? It will make the mothers and fathers left behind in the evacuation areas feel more bitter still. I hope that the Minister will ask all mothers and fathers with children at school to do their duty, if it be necessary, in the strategic situation in the country, for their children to be got away, upon the Government's requisition, to an appropriate area. Everybody has to face up to his duty in these days. Duty is often disagreeable, but we have to defend our country to the last man, woman and child. Times are urgent. I hope the Minister will act on the advice of the hon. Lady; if it is necessary for women to talk to women I hope that will be done at once. The essential point of duty should, at the same time, be clearly brought home.
Yesterday I went to the South coast to see for myself, in what I considered one of the danger areas, how many children there might be about. I toured over an area of 60 or 70 miles, and I was appalled at the number of children I saw there—really appalled. It is something that must be dealt with. Nobody likes compulsion if a thing can be done in a voluntary way, but there are some areas where the element of compulsion ought to be applied, if necessary, owing to the strategic position of the war. The Ministry ought to consider some of the areas which are now close to the enemy, and where there should be some measure of compulsion. I am certain that the

people of the country are ready to do what is right when they are called upon.
I do not share the gloomy view of the right hon. Gentleman that everybody would rather go to prison than have his children taken to safety. I do not think that that is the mentality of the English father and mother. Why not send the mothers with the children to the reception areas? There ought to be places where you can get a harmonious way of doing these things quickly without a lot of quibbling. Many things have been cropping up since the war started—things which have taken weeks of arguing and Debate to decide upon, and which, if they had been done before, would have put us in an immensely stronger position at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman tackles any job well, he does it the right way and we have every confidence in him in carrying out the scheme, but it must not fail again. If there is need for special powers, then take them, but the Government must not say, "We have done our best and that is as far as we can go," because the responsibility for anything that may happen to the children of school-leaving age will lie upon the Government and not upon the parents. I hope the Government will accept that responsibility in its fullest sense.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Might I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman for a moment? He referred to the large number of children who are on the South coast. I hope he realises that a vast number of those children are not living there but are on holiday.

Major Braithwaite: Just before I leave this point, I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman what I consider to be the fundamental mistake in the last evacuation. I represent an area near the sea. I also have an important military position in that area. Children were brought to that area from the North of England and it was used as a reception area. I do not want to give locations or districts at the moment—I am trying to avoid that—but I want to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances that reception area has become as dangerous an area as any part of this country, and if there is any extension of reception in that area I hope that fact will be noted. I can only say that I have done my best to have these children dispersed. I represent a very


large constituency which runs over 800 square miles, so that I have been able to get some dispersement done, but not as much as I would like. In carrying out this new scheme the Government should not hesitate to revise the old one if strategically any area has become more dangerous than it was before.
I want to say a word about hospitals. As everybody knows, we now have a number of wounded in the country. I hope that proper plans have been made so that when those men are able to leave hospital they can go to properly selected convalescent homes or centres where they can have a little of the brightness of life restored to them, and so that they may lose that feeling of sickness and moodiness and be speedily restored to health. In the last war we were short of those places and I hope we shall not have a repetition of that state of affairs. I hope the Government are making proper provision for these places of recuperation, with all that is necessary to restore men back to health and bodily fitness. We have implicit confidence in the Government's ability to meet these difficult and dangerous times, and everybody wants to do everything possible to make the job lighter and not more difficult; but we want to put these points to the Minister in order that he may know what is happening in different parts of the country. I earnestly hope that the Minister will have the fullest cognisance of the fact that other people are willing to help. I would like to see everybody in this country who cannot be used for war-time work taken away from danger, thus lessening the liability of the country, so that we can roll up our sleeves and get down to the business of beating the Germans as quickly as possible.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have been particularly interested in the varied aspects of this problem which have been put before the Committee. With regard to the hospital services, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he had appointed an expert staff to go round the hospitals and to see if they were working satisfactorily. He mentioned three districts to which he proposed to send these experts soon. I hope it will not be too long before Lancashire is visited. I agree that all the difficulties cannot be foreseen.

Some of the things that have happened ought not to have happened, and nothing irritates or enrages our people more than to see the men who have been prepared to sacrifice their lives, sick, ill and wounded, and treated with an absence of care which ought not to happen if there is any organisation at all. I hope the committee of inquiry, which is working speedily, will attempt to get round in order that these things which do occur, and which perhaps cannot be foreseen, can be put right at the earliest possible moment. If our people want to do anything at all it is to provide all the help they can for those who have suffered during the past few weeks.
With regard to the question of evacuation, the speeches which have been made this afternoon have indicated the difficulty of the subject, and I think that those of us who have been in touch with the problem from the beginning know that those difficulties have not been lessened by what has taken place. The difficulty of dealing with this subject, apart from the question of education, presents itself to everybody. Anyone who has been in a neutral or evacuation area has been faced with this problem and has had to give it his earnest consideration. We had a human and touching appeal from my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I entirely agree with her as to the psychological reaction which follows an attempt to separate a mother from her child, but, if I may say so, I believe the Minister this afternoon drew an entirely wrong deduction from that very psychological factor. He suggested that it was for that reason that he could not, except for purposes of military exigencies, attempt to apply compulsion, and my hon. Friend suggested that he could not do so for the same reason. The people who have evacuated their children, however, have exactly the same feelings as those who object to evacuation, and it is out of, not a greater love but a greater realisation of that love for their children, that they are prepared to separate from them. The Minister's statement was that they would go to prison rather than be separated from them, and that we could not attempt to force them into prison.
If we are not prepared to face up to that aspect of the problem, we must do something else. I should be out of order


in attempting to discuss it, because one is then faced with a new situation. One must not forget that the argument of the Minister was that whatever happened to the child's body, to leave it in the presence of danger from falling bombs would affect the child's mind. Apart from physical danger from bombs, you cannot neglect a child's mind. Therefore, the Minister of Education must come in. If you refuse to face up to compulsory evacuation, you must prepare for the education of the children remaining in the danger areas. I am sorry that the people who are to be made responsible in the reception areas are not the education authorities, and that the county councils have not the major responsibility in this matter. If the county councils were responsible, this psychological aspect could be linked up, as it were, with the practical aspect.
I was in a home this morning in which there is a young refugee. It is the home in which I live when I am in London. Yesterday the child was examined, preparatory to being evacuated. The child was looking forward to going away with its own schoolmates. Its father and mother are in Ecuador; and its little life is centred upon its school, apart from the good foster-mother who is looking after it in the house where I live. For some reason, the child could not be evacuated with its own school. The education authority suggested, quite rightly, that it might be evacuated with another school. The child began to cry, and the foster-mother said that in no circumstances should it go with another school. I agree with the foster-mother; after all that the child has suffered, it would be cruelty to send it away with a lot of strangers. But, with its own schoolmates, it would have been all right. The education authorities should be made the billeting authorities in order that the children, missing their own mothers, might retain some of the communal life which they get in their schools. Those things have to be borne in mind if a success is to be made of evacuation.
We have to do something more. It is not easy I know. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last said that he had sent his children to America, because they would be safe there. Coldly and logically, I felt bound to agree that he had done the right thing; but when I

think of the thousands of mothers who cannot afford to do that, I ask, what is the reaction? Such a step may be more detrimental than useful. We must be careful in considering schemes which may give preference to one set of people over another, particularly when we are considering this question of safety zones. I know that some of the reception areas have been criticised because of difficulties that arose on the last occasion, but there are difficulties that arise, both at the reception end and at the evacuation end, and we have to face them. It might be that in a crisis, when we are all expecting something to happen, people would be prepared to put up with almost anything; but if for a long time nothing serious happens, people begin to make comparisons as to the sacrifies which are being made; and it is not difficult in a reception area to find homes where children are not wanted, and others where they are welcomed. It does not necessarily follow that the homes where they are welcomed are the best for the children. It may be that those compulsory powers which we have heard about in connection with the evacuation areas will have to be used in the reception areas; but the best form of reception cannot be attained by compulsion, just as the best form of evacuation cannot.
The suggestion made by my hon. Friend might be tried. I confess that I do not listen to Ministers as often as she does, but I think that the mother is more likely to influence another mother than are most of the Ministers that I know. It seems to me that a mother—and, if I may say so, not a mother who occupies a high place in society, but a working-class mother who has been convinced of the necessity of allowing her children to go away to safety—would be the most practical propagandist we could have for the removal of those children to safer areas. After listening to wireless speeches, including those of the Minister of Information, I am convinced that even the entertainment value of the wireless would be increased by something of that sort. There is a good deal in what the hon. Lady said in favour of compulsion. I believe that there are a greater number of parents who are anxious to have their minds made up for them than is generally realised. I would not be so much afraid of the compulsion, and of what might be its effects, if they were convinced that it was purely


for the safety of their children that this was being done. While the Minister has told us that the Government have made up their minds that only in regard to military exigencies are they prepared to exercise these compulsory powers at the moment, I suggest that they should take into consideration these problems in regard to education, because I am sure that they cannot reasonably be left out of consideration.

7.38 p.m.

Captain Elliston: The hon. Members for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) and Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) have described with much eloquence the human considerations which make it so difficult to reach any cold-blooded decision about compulsory evacuation, but I think most of us are in agreement with the Minister that in present circumstances any attempt to enforce compulsory evacuation would be most unfortunate in its effects upon the people. The Minister was careful to say that, in certain circumstances and in certain places, the possibility of compulsory evacuation could not be overlooked. Listening to the hon. Member for West Fulham, I could not help feeling that the merits of evacuation would not be fully realised by the people until it has been our unhappy experience to see some terrible slaughter of innocents in this country. Then, perhaps, people will recognise how necessary it is for the Government to take the responsibility for action which it is difficult for the mothers to take. I do not agree that only a woman can make this point understood by the people. At this time, with this virile race, the mothers are prepared to receive a strong lead from the Government; and when the Minister is convinced by circumstances that those women must harden their hearts and part with their children, no sob-stuff will be necessary to secure their co-operation. The Minister has purposely reserved to himself the right to decide when the occasion comes for the enforcement of compulsory evacuation. But I have heard the view expressed by medical men of great experience that it is essential that, in the case of large parts of the country at any rate, the Minister should indicate where, in certain circumstances, he may advise compulsory evacuation. Only then will the Medical War Emergency Committee be able to ear-

mark the men essential for the fundamental services in the designated neighbourhood and use the surplus practitioners for distribution in reception areas where their services will become necessary for the evacuated people. Putting aside the danger of creating unnecessary alarm, and also the danger perhaps of disclosing military information, the Minister might give a confidential hint to the Central Medical War Emergency Committee of the areas where he thinks they ought to be prepared to adjust the medical services to meet new conditions arising out of the evacuation scheme.
The question of evacuation has been discussed very fully by those with a wide knowledge of the subject, but there are one or two minor points with regard to evacuation which I should like to mention very briefly, not hoping perhaps that the Minister will deal with them to-night, but that they will be borne in mind by him to be dealt with when occasion permits. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) asked the other day whether, at a time when we are surrendering so many of our liberties, the people should be asked to make some other concessions in the interests of national safety. Here we are transferring children from the crowded towns to the countryside, with the possibility of infection to country children, which it is unfair of our town dwellers to impose upon them. The hon. Member for Romford said that in certain circumstances there should be a measure of compulsory innoculation, and the Ministry of Health, with its responsibility for the health of the people, ought to take into account the importance of the subject. Otherwise loss of life from a single epidemic might compare badly with the number of deaths resulting from several air raids.
Again, hon. Members from both sides of the House have appealed to the Minister of Health again and again to protect the people against impure and infected milk. Recently a very welcome statement was submitted to us by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food announcing the making of free milk available and increasing the provision of free or cheap milk for mothers, infants or schoolchildren during the war period. Most children in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and other big cities are provided with pasteurised milk, but when evacuated to the countryside they


must often drink milk which cannot be regarded as safe. The right of the farmer to supply unsafe milk is one of those liberties which should certainly be surrendered in war-time.
The question of vermin us children is a very difficult problem which is associated with poverty and bad housing. It has been a cause of trouble in many rural areas where children have been sent, and public opinion has been shocked because such a high percentage of the children were in that condition. The suggestion has been made by the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow that at this time local authorities ought to be given an extension of their powers to deal with this problem. It has been proved that the mothers in their homes cannot do it at this time, and therefore, he has asked that the local authorities should be empowered by the Ministry to enable them to undertake the cleansing themselves, and to take other measures, such as the cutting of hair, and so on. Such concessions would enable the cleansing to be carried through quickly and efficiently. It might be hoped that the Minister would bear in mind that particular proposal, even if he was approaching the territory of the Board of Education. We were told this afternoon by the hen. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) that as the subject was not being dealt with on educational problems the Debate to-day was "cabin'd, cribb'd, confin'd." I cannot see myself how the problem of evacuation can be tackled without the necessary co-operation of the local health authorities.
With regard to the emergency hospital services, I have talked to people who are engaged in local administration and to medical men in various types of practice, and I find general agreement that, considering all the conditions we have had to face, the scheme has achieved a very reasonable measure of success. There seems also to be agreement that such success is due to the fact that the Ministry in all the steps that have been taken has very wisely co-operated closely with the British Medical Association, which represents over 40,000 physicians, surgeons, specialists and general practitioners, institutional medical officers, and soon. This representative body can understand the health problems of this country in all their aspects, and any Minister who hopes to create a successful scheme cannot

possibly dispense with the advice and experience that they can give him. The policy of the Government in regard to emergency medical service hospitals is that military casualties will be treated in these institutions. Therefore, it becomes essential, both in the interests of the civil and the military community, that there should be no poaching and no unreasonable competition between these hospitals and the other services for the service of the civilian medical consultants. The Central War Emergency Committee was set up to allocate the civilian medical practitioners. They had only a limited pool to draw upon, and there were signs that other people were poaching from that pool. Some little time ago a committee was set up representative of the emergency medical services and the Naval, Military and Royal Air Force medical services with the object of reaching a friendly agreement regarding their respective requirements of medical staffs. That committee was presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, but I believe that the Assheton Committee, as it may be called, has only met once and has not yet made any report. I wish the Minister would tell us to-night whether adequate measures have been taken to ensure that medical personnel are being used to the best advantage, and that men are being allocated to the right jobs.
I would like to refer to the physio-medical treatment of war injuries referred to by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), which seems enormously important at this time. That treatment has largely developed since the last war, and it is very desirable that our wounded and industrial casualties should have the advantage of methods that do so much to restore efficiency for military or civil duties. There seems to be some doubt regarding the evacuation of expectant mothers. I am told that the suggestion is that they should be evacuated in the ninth month, whereas many experienced practitioners believe the penultimate month to be the best for their removal. Again it is suggested that their return to a danger area is too soon after the date of birth. Perhaps, however, the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what it is proposed to do about these cases.
I have heard great satisfaction expressed regarding the efficiency of the dental services which are now available for evacuated persons. In that connection two suggestions have been made bearing on the threatened shortage of medical practitioners. Should we be overwhelmed by a tremendous number of casualties at the same time as we have to take care of evacuated persons in new areas, such a shortage might well occur. I am told that dental practitioners would like to help with some of the work of medical practitioners, which they can do, so as to release the latter for employment on other work. It is suggested that a short post-graduate course would qualify dental surgeons to assist as anaesthetists at the emergency medical Service hospitals. In particular, they would like to be employed at first-aid posts, because their professional training provided sufficient knowledge of medical matters of the work of these posts. Finally, it does seem grotesque that at a time when elderly medical men are being brought out of retirement, some local authorities are still insisting on medical women retiring on marriage. These women, who are anxious to serve their country at this time, are very often especially fit to do so by reason of their specialist medical experience. Perhaps in this matter the Minister himself would set a good example.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Spens: I will take up only a few minutes of the time of the Committee, but I want to say a word or two as one who, all along, has represented a reception area and has had in his own house some evacuated children. The area I represent—the middle of Kent—is in a very different situation from what it was when the evacuated children came to us last September. I listened with a great deal of interest to what my right hon. Friend said about the various alterations which had been made in respect of such areas. It is quite true that from an area round the coast all the children who were originally sent there have been passed on to areas slightly more inland and that additional children who should have come to us a fortnight ago have not come. That is no doubt extremely wise, but on the other hand we have this rather curious situation: You have rural areas right up to the outskirts of substantial towns and

evacuated children have been sent on elsewhere. But you also have these substantial inland towns to which large numbers of evacuee children have been sent. I have not the slightest doubt that the sending of children to such towns has, because of the building facilities which have been available, enabled their education to go on successfully. But when my right hon. Friend talks about the underlying principle being the principle of dispersal, and the safety that comes from that principle, I cannot believe that we can rely on that safety for those children who will remain inside these towns. After all, what does it mean?
I have in mind an area where there are 2,000 extra children, which means that the number of people to the acre is now fairly heavy. I would suggest that my right hon. Friend ought to consider and, if possible consider at his 10.30 meeting to-morrow morning, whether it would not be desirable that from such areas some further measures of dispersal be taken. I say that deliberately because of the attitude of parents of the children who have been in my house since last September. One set of parents, when the situation altered so rapidly as it did a fortnight ago, came down and of their own accord took their children away to what they regarded as at any rate not a substantially more dangerous area than that to which their children were originally evacuated. That was their own personal view. The parents of the other children are infinitely more anxious. There is no doubt that the responsibility of having other people's children in one's house does appear a much more serious responsibility, in the neighbourhood of that particular place, than it was when those children originally came. I believe that feeling is shared by a great number of neighbours who are still housing other people's children in that area.
May I say a word about compulsion and non-compulsion? I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) and I, like everybody else, would much prefer the method of persuasion. Like her, I would much prefer persuasion to be used in order to get mothers to do what we all think they should do, but surely the question is, does time for persuasion remain? Are we not now faced with the situation that really it is not a ques-


tion of talking about persuasion but taking action within the next week or so? Surely the time has come for decision, which the right hon. Gentleman is not afraid to take.
I feel strongly that in those areas where there is any sort of military advice a decision should be taken, and taken at once without further delay. My feeling, quite frankly, is that in those areas—I am speaking from contact with people in what we regard as more dangerous areas than other parts of England—I am not sure they are—at any rate we are under 30 miles from the nearest place occupied by the Germans—whatever order the Government give on their responsibility will be most loyally carried out by the whole population, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman will be faced with any difficulties. At any rate, my feeling is that if the military authorities do advise evacuation to be carried out, and carried out compulsorily, in the interests of mothers and of the children themselves, we should not hesitate to support the Minister in his decision.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The Committee is indebted to the Minister for his lucid and clear and, if it had been possible, his convincing statement this afternoon. It is an unfortunately strange and unkind cut of fate that when we are dealing with a question affecting the child population of the country the Minister is a bachelor and the Parliamentary Secretary a spinster. I think the Committee should strongly recommend that this undesirable situation should be terminated without delay. The Government in the previous evacuation scheme and in the present one do not appear to have approached the subject in the serious fashion it necessitates. If evacuation is a military necessity—and all forms of evacuation are a military necessity—it ought to be carried out under the best possible terms and with the fullest amount of thought given to the problem. The last evacuation was a pronounced failure. It was a failure in the reception areas. The billeting was private, the education was scarce and, in the main, the medical services and school feeling were absent, and the result was that many parents withdrew their children and took them back again to their homes. The Committee know the condi-

tions in the reception areas. As far as the child's school interests were concerned it was a sealed book. The schools were all closed and the medical services shut down. The examination of children for medical or dental purposes was brought to an end, and school feeding disappeared. Apparently, in the national interest, for the long period of six months these many thousands of children in the reception areas were deprived of the proper facilities for child life.
I think it is true to affirm that this will prove to be detrimental for life to large numbers of the children of the industrial workers in this country. We may reasonably ask the Minister of Health whether better provision has now been made. He did not tell us whether large hostels or halls or camps had been requisitioned to bring as near an approach to communal existence and communal education, together with health services, as is possible. Perhaps he will let us know what the situation is in the reception areas. If the Government are making, as they are at the moment, evacuation optional, there is a liability on the Government to see that those who do not avail themselves of the option for one reason or another shall not be penalised for so doing. There should be no question of penalty attaching to it. I saw a statement in one of the London evening papers that in the evacuation areas the schools will all be closed and the children will be able to run about the streets. Is that going to be the fortune of children in the evacuation areas? In the last evacuation it was anticipated that some 3,000,000 children would avail themselves of it. It was not long before only 400,000 were left in the reception areas, and probably the same state of affairs will obtain now. We have been informed that only one in five of the school children are availing themselves or are likely to avail themselves of the opportunity of evacuation.
On the question of compulsory evacuation I wish to express my personal view. It is supplemented, I can assure the Committee, by a number of conferences we have had on Tyneside with various Labour organisations. When the situation has been fairly put to them by those who have experience of evacuation conditions, and by those who are competent to envisage the conditions in an evacuation area where bombing might take


place, we have obtained a virtually unanimous agreement on compulsory evacuation. I think that if it could be stated—and it might justly be stated—that it was a stern military necessity, that it was essential to the success of our war effort, the parents would undoubtedly consent to such evacuation. If bombing takes place, the children who remain in the evacuation areas will be in the greatest peril. I do not think any parent in any area where bombing is likely to ensue, could refuse to permit the children to be removed, if possible, to safety, but if there were any such cases I am sure compulsion would undoubtedly succeed and would have general assent. Voluntary evacuation is a heritage from the last Government. Ministers are treading in footsteps which, in the judgment of this Parliament, were not too wisely directed, and the right hon. Gentleman should give deeper consideration to this question, particularly in view of the failure of the voluntary system hitherto.
In the judgment of the majority of citizens this is a matter of paramount importance. That being so, why have we not had a preliminary campaign in favour of compulsory evacuation? As far as I know, there has been little or no Press or platform campaign. I would be delighted to take the platform anywhere and I have no doubt so would many of my colleagues, in support of such a campaign. There has been no pulpit campaign and no wireless campaign to demonstrate the urgent necessity, in the national interest, of preserving what is the nation's most valuable asset at the present time. By reason of the fact that the Minister has been bequeathed a certain policy, we have had only a half hearted attempt to deal with the problem. The Minister cut away a good deal of his own ground when he said that the Government would not rule out the possibility of compulsory evacuation from areas where attack was likely to ensue. Does not that apply to all the evacuation areas? Unquestionably it does and if the statement were to be made, with the authority of the Government behind it, that evacuation from certain areas was an essential part of our war effort, I am convinced that the great bulk of our people would assent to it.
Everybody must sympathise with the view which was so admirably expressed

by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). We all feel the burden which is imposed upon parents who have to send their children away, but, after all, parents have an obligation to the State as well as to their offspring. If the true position, in relation both to the safety and the ultimate welfare and health of the children, could be painted in the proper colours, I have no doubt that parents would assent to whatever measure of compulsion might be found necessary. The Minister has said that the Government's responsibility, in the event of children being killed or injured in reception areas, would be very great if they applied compulsion. But the Government are the custodians of the whole nation and particularly of the children. Is their responsibility not equally great, if they fail to take the opportunity which is in their hands of ensuring that those who are unable to protect themselves shall be transferred to safer areas and, if necessary, compulsorily moved from place to place, in order to make their protection as complete as possible?

8.16 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). The Minister made it clear that if the Government were advised that, for military reasons, a certain area should be cleared, then compulsion would be used. Obviously, nobody would object in a case of that kind; everybody would be most anxious to fall in with compulsory orders in that event. I am very anxious, however, that compulsion should not be applied except in such circumstances. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham that only a mother can really understand this question. No man can understand it; certainly no one who has not children can understand it. It is a matter of psychology. Whoever you are, or what your position is, wherever you live, or how you live, if you are a mother you feel a drag when your children are not with you. Then, nothing else really counts. I know it. I think one may be allowed to mention one's personal feelings in a case like this. Full as my life is, and interesting as it is, only one thing matters to me, and that is to get back to my children when I can get back to them.
If that is so in my case, how much more does it apply to the working-class woman who has a hard life, working from morning till night. The one thing that counts with her is the compensation of her children and her love for them and their love for her. Yet it is proposed to ask these women to send their children away, perhaps for months, perhaps for years—no one can tell. True, it may be possible for them to visit the children occasionally. But it is a very big problem, and I repeat, one which only a mother can really understand. The most devoted father in the world does not really understand, except perhaps through his wife, the full meaning of the drag of maternal love, and what the children mean to the mother and what the mother means to the children. That is why I cannot support certain hon. Members in the desire that compulsion should be used.
I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham that this matter might, perhaps, have been approached in a wiser way. I think this is a question which should be put to the women of the country by mothers who have faced it and decided it for themselves. Many of us have had to decide it for ourselves and make up our minds whether to let our children go or not The hon. Lady and I may know where our children are going and who is to have the care of them, but a number of these women do not know either where their children are going or who will have the care of them. But even that knowledge does not compensate the mother for the fact that she is not with the children herself. These other women, who are being asked to send their children away, have to take the chance that their children will receive understanding, love and a home life. It is so very easy to say that compulsion should be used in the case of somebody else's children. That is why I urge the Minister to use every means of putting this appeal across to the mothers, with the help of the mothers who understand what these women are going through. Then perhaps there might be a better response.
Another point I wish to emphasise is the question of keeping the minds of the children employed. There has never been anything more disastrous than the six months during which children were running wild. Every child is feeling this

war, and is feeling it acutely. That is so even with the smallest child I know because I have the advantage of having children whose ages range from 18 to five years. I know pretty well how the minds of these children are working and how deeply anxious they are, whether it is my 18-year old, 16-year old, 12-year old or five year old child. I know how deeply anxious they are about this war, and that there is only one way to keep their minds quiet, and that is by keeping them occupied all day long until, physically tired, they go to bed to sleep. I do hope that as compulsion is not being used—and I do not want to see it used—the Minister will see to it that the children who remain in the towns are occupied, and that arrangements will be made for the schools to keep open. I hope that we shall not see children running about the streets in these grave times, otherwise the effect on their minds will be very serious indeed.
As one who represents a reception area, and I know my reception area pretty well, I would like to say how much we owe to the devotion, the unselfish devotion, which has been given to thousands of children in these areas. I do not believe that people living outside reception areas quite know what these people have been through. It is not only the really hard cases, the extreme cases, but it is the tremendous tie on these working-class cottage women. There have been cases of women who have never been able to leave their houses since these children first came to them. As an hon. Member said, it is the responsibility of having other people's children—that, I know, is, perhaps, even worse than being responsible for one's own child. You feel that you owe more to other people's children than you do to your own, and you want to give them the same love and the same kindness and understanding. I am sure that that is the case with most mothers in the countryside. It is a tie for those who have other people to help them, but it is a tremendous tie for those with no one to assist them, for those who live in small and crowded houses and have to cope with numbers, and it is often numbers, of extra children.
Again I say that I would not like to see compulsion used. If you can still appeal to the voluntary spirit you will get the right response. I know so well from representations made to me from all over


my constituency the very difficult times these people have been through, but I do not think they will fail the Government or the country if they are appealed to again in an emergency. No one in the country will fail when that emergency comes, but it would be as great a mistake to try and force these people to take children as it would be to force children by compulsion to leave their mothers.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Viant: There is one aspect of the hospital problem to which I desire to direct the Minister's attention. Through unfortunate circumstances it has been necessary for me to attend a hospital a good deal during the last three months. It was one of those country hospitals which had been reorganised to meet possible contingencies arising from war conditions. What struck me most was the inadequacy of the number of nurses, and I am persuaded from my experience gained in the hospital which I have been visiting that if we have anything in the nature of an inadequacy of nursing staff, hospitals will be totally inadequate to deal with the situation. I will give an illustration. In a ward, with 25 beds, there was, during the daytime, a sister with two and sometimes three nurses. The hospital routine had to be gone through in the morning, but the sister, and possibly a nurse, had to go round with the doctor to visit the patients, with the result that the work accumulated and had to be done later in the day. At night there were two nurses on duty. I made it my business to inquire what the situation was, and I discovered that the county authority was compelled under the reorganisation imposed by the Ministry of Health to deplete its staff to the extent of 50 per cent. and to send them to another establishment. I know there are V.A.D. nurses who may come in and render assistance in the event of an emergency, but it is conceivable that even some of these assistants will not be able to stand the strain. I am raising this point because I visualise that if this is general throughout the country, the hospital system will break down. I am not raising this for the purpose of criticising, but because I feel it is a weakness. I hope the Minister will be able to bear it in mind and if he desires to have the name of the hospital, I will gladly give it to him

in private. I hope it is not a general state of affairs throughout the country.
I pass from that to the subject of evacuation. In my constituency mothers come to me with their problems. The evacuation scheme last September was carried out in a great hurry. For the transport and organisation we can pat ourselves on the back. I find, however, that a large number of mothers are adamant in their refusal because of that experience to allow their children to go away again. The children of a mental defective school were sent to the East coast, and we know what has occurred there in recent months. We can imagine the mental condition of the mothers when they learned of the terrifying experiences through which their children were going. These things are not confined to the few hundred mothers, because they become propagandists and pass the experiences of their children on to other mothers. I hope that that condition of affairs has been remedied. A large number of mothers say they will not allow their children to go away again for another reason. They are very poor and their children were none too well clothed when they went away. During the winter many of them were walking about in ordinary indoor shoes in the snow, frost and bitter cold. A number of them had no top coats, and the parents were not in the position to provide them. It is to be said for many of those who took the children in the reception areas that they gave them boots and shoes, clothed them and gave them top coats. The mothers, knowing that in many instances that is impossible, are reluctant to permit their children to go through those conditions again. In one large school last week where a number of children had gone through that type of experience only 17 children and seven teachers volunteered to go away again.
I hope that we shall try to avoid a number of the mistakes that were made in the haste of last September. In two instances, unfortunately, children died while they were away. Friends of the parents visited the local authority with a requisition that the children might be brought home to be buried. The local authority, however, said that they had no power to pay for sending home the bodies. That has had a bad effect upon other parents, and one can appreciate their reluctance to allow their children to


go away again. I should deplore anything in the nature of compulsion. I do not think it will be necessary, provided—andwe might have done a great deal before now in this direction—we select from among the mothers who have seen the wisdom of allowing their children to go away again those who are able to put the essential points to the remaining mothers and coach them to the need for agreeing to their children going away. It should be emphasised that the mothers are to be given something in the nature of a guarantee that their children will be well cared for while their children are away.
In the experiment of last September those who were responsible for placing the children in the reception areas had little or no time in which to select the types of home for the various children. Our experience was that a number of children who had tolerably good homes and parents indecent circumstances were put into some of the poorest homes, while children who were brought from the poorest parts of the constituency were sent to better-class homes. More care must be exercised in that matter. The children who went into the better-class homes could not adapt themselves to their changed circumstances and were uncomfortable and uneasy. One mother complained to me and said that her daughter was in Northampton and that the people with whom she was billeted were well-to-do, had their own car and took her out to social functions. I told her I thought it was rather a good thing and that she ought to be pleased. She said, "No, I am not; I do not want her brought up in that way," and she brought her daughter away.
A little more care might be exercised by those responsible in the reception areas to see that the children are placed with hosts with whom they will feel more at home than that girl could feel in a well-to-do home. We might say that it was to the girl's advantage, but the girl and the mother were unhappy about it. The homes should be so selected that the children are sent into environments similar to their own where they will feel happy. I particularly emphasise the need for educating the parents to the advantage of permitting their children to go away, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) that that can best be

done by those working-class parents who have already seen the wisdom of taking this course. If that course is adopted, probably we shall avoid a situation which might end in something in the nature of a disaster; but if we create the wrong spirit there will be a feeling of rebellion against evacuation, whereas at this time we want everything to be done in a spirit of co-operation.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: I think the Committee can congratulate itself upon undertaking this discussion on this important subject at this crucial time. As the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has indicated, the period of experiment has passed, and we ought to have gained experience for any further action which may have to be taken. I wish to emphasise one or two aspects of this problem which I fear may be overlooked even in this later stage. I would urge particularly that care should be taken in the selection of reception areas and would illustrate my point by an instance from my own experience, without indicating the district. The particular area to which I refer, which has a population of about 40,000, was classified originally as a reception area. A census was taken of the accommodation available and for weeks and months the people were expecting the arrival of children who were to be billeted upon them, but none came until about a fortnight ago, when, after a few days notice, between 600 and 700 children arrived. Unfortunately in the meantime between 5,000 and 6,000 soldiers had been billeted in the area. Also, within easy distance there is a training camp, which began nine months ago with 4,000 trainees and is rapidly developing. The area is, too, within eight or ten miles of one of the most thickly-populated industrial districts in any part of the country. Obviously the industrial areas will be an object of attack if the enemy, in addition to seeking to create confusion, wants to destroy the centres from which come the supplies for carrying on the war. I am certain that the people in that area are prepared to welcome these children and to make them contented and happy, but when selecting reception areas we ought to consider the possibility that they may be the object of enemy attacks by reason of the presence of training camps or their proximity to industrial areas.
This Debate must also have emphasised the point that one of the reasons for the re-evacuation of children from certain areas is that those areas are now regarded as likely to be danger spots and to be lacking in facilities for protection. Is the Minister quite certain that many of the new areas into which children have now been drafted have sufficient protection for a greatly-increased population? As he will appreciate, all urban authorities have not the same resources as large boroughs or county boroughs to inaugurate schemes of Civil Defence. I very much fear whether the normal population of those areas would have adequate shelter accommodation in the event of a raid. Will it be possible for them to cope with an increased population and to guarantee the safety of the children?
We have been discussing the vexed question of voluntary versus compulsory evacuation. Like many of my colleagues, I believe that, in the main, the voluntary principle is the better, admitting, of course, that emergency situations might arise in which no one could complain if compulsory action were taken, and taken promptly, to safeguard the population. But there is a good deal to be said in favour of the plea which has already been made that greater efforts should be made to get parents to understand more thoroughly the realities of the situation. To realise what might happen in the event of large-scale air raids, one has only to look at the pictures from Continental countries showing streams of refugees leaving towns and villages to seek places of refuge, some of them even leaving their own country. If only we can impress upon the people now the realities of what may happen, I am sure they will make the necessary arrangements for the evacuation of their children. I believe there is something to be said, if circumstances demand, for the mothers to go with the children. That would tend to solve the problem of the younger children, who would not only have the care and attention that they need but the faithful loyalty to which they are accustomed. I believe the suggestion was made that women themselves should plead with the mothers of the country to fall in with the appeal for evacuation. There is something very natural in such an

approach, and I hope that it will attain the object which we have in view.
In emphasising these aspects of the question, we desire that the Ministry should try to safeguard the interests of the younger generation in respect of those things that will make or mar them when they are divorced from their families and are carried into a new environment among strangers. In some respects this change may enlighten them, but, nevertheless, it will be a strain. I hope there will be an extension of emergency health measures, with a view to giving that individual attention which the children usually had in their home life, and that the development of their education will be safeguarded to the highest possible degree so that they may be prepared to face the greater eventualities that may arise.

8.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): The greater part of this Debate has been on the subject of evacuation, but I should like to deal for a few moments with the subject of the emergency hospital scheme before I pass on to the points that have been put forward on the subject of evacuation. During the past two weeks, we have had the first full trial trip for our emergency hospital scheme, particularly in dealing with casualties which have come to this country. I would first like to say what wonderful work has been done in the hospitals by those who have been dealing with the disembarkation, entraining and detraining ofcasualties—the stretcher bearers, surgeons and nurses and all others who have been dealing with this work. This test took place at the beginning in rather more difficult circumstances. We have only to remind ourselves of the number of casualties that we received and that came to this country in circumstances which will never be forgotten and are part of the history of this country. Wonderful work was done.
From visiting the hospitals I know that there is one opinion I would never take, and it is that given to me by wounded men, because they have been so grateful and so full of appreciation for all that has been done for them. They have been patient under the most trying circumstances, and I feel that I must go further and listen and look at every other criticism and every suggestion as to how we


can improve the service. To those of us who have had the opportunity of going to some of these hospitals and seeing the work going on, it has been something that we shall not forget. Not only have we had gratitude from the men themselves, but from their relations and from those who have been in touch with them we have had appreciation also. I should like to tell the Committee that we have had it from those who have come from the Allied Armies. The other day, in one of the hospitals, I met an officer of the French medical service. He came to thank me, and he asked me to thank the Government and the people of this country for the way in which the French and Allied wounded had been received and looked after.
It is clear from the statement of my right hon. Friend that our object now is to find every case in which there has been difficulty, slowness or lack of efficiency in any way, and to endeavour to deal with each single case. I hope that every hon. Member will bring to our notice particular cases that they may hear of, as they go about in their constituencies or elsewhere. I believe that my right hon. Friend has said that we are looking particularly to every region at the present time to find out the difficulties. We want to give the speediest and most efficient treatment to every injured person. We know the difficulties, and that we may not reach perfection. There may be appalling difficulties as the war proceeds, and our scheme must be elastic. There must be great mobility, if we are, during this time of war, not in a distant country but on our doorstep, or in this country, to be able to deal with difficulties.
I speak of efficiency. By that, I mean taking advantage of all that science has given us. Especially we want to hear every form of criticism and of opinion, in order to try to weigh up the opinions of specialists. There may be many points of view and many treatments for different types of case. The subject of physiotherapy has been brought up this afternoon. I might say that an advisory committee has been set up, and my right hon. Friend is desirous of ensuring not only that we get advice or decisions, but that decisions are carried out. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) put his finger on one of our difficulties

when he spoke of the different authorities. There are the Ministry of Health, the medical profession, local authorities, and hospital authorities, and what we have to get, as far as possible, is real co-operation between them all. When the machine is really working we shall be able to see whether there is sufficient co-operation. Perhaps in some cases information has not reached the officer-in-charge of a particular branch of the service.
As for the subject of air-raid precautions, I think the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) will agree that in dealing with air-aid casualties we must remember that it means dealing with them in the middle of a raid. It must be remembered that the places where we have our precautions and posts are liable to be bombed, and it may not be possible to get transport to them. We must be able to set up first-aid posts at other places, and we must be prepared for all the difficulties which are likely to arise. As for surgical treatment, we must see that our personnel and equipment are mobile. It would be a disaster if we had too many of our expert surgeons in certain places when in time of an air raid it might be impossible for them to reach casualties. We must face the fact that during air raids hospitals may be bombed and we may lose equipment. The more we go into this scheme, the more we must see how we can best provide the personnel and equipment, so that whatever happens we can give the maximum attention with the minimum delay. All the points that have been raised to-day will certainly be looked into, and this matter in particular will be under constant survey. Reference was made to the experience of Barcelona, but we have later experience than that. We have experience of what is happening every day. It is only by learning what is happening in the different countries that we can improve our system and be able to deal with the various emergencies.
Another point that was raised was the subject of the evacuation of expectant mothers. The question was asked whether it was laid down with no exception, that expectant mothers should go in the last month before they expect their confinement. I think it is understood that expectant mothers who have registered to go out are urged to go in the last month,


but we have tried to impress upon them over and over again that, should they be willing to go before, we shall be only too willing to make arrangements for them to go. The accommodation in maternity homes which have been set up has been approved, I think, by all who have seen it.
A point was raised with regard to nurses. We have tried, if possible, to staff up to full capacity—and I think we have succeeded—all those hospitals which are receiving casualties. In the other hospitals we adopt the idea which the hon. Member brought out in his speech, that certain members of the staff should, perhaps, move to another hospital. It is the clear understanding that both kinds of hospitals will again be staffed fully when the patients come in. We are bearing in mind that it is not simply a case of putting in one grade of nurses. In each district, we are keeping in a pool, as it were, the names of nurses and the various grades of sisters. It is not the case that when sisters are removed from a hospital V.A.D.'s or nursing auxiliaries, with less experience, are put in their places.

Mr. Viant: But each of the beds in the ward to which I have referred, and in other wards, are now full, yet the hospital is under-staffed at the moment.

Miss Horsbrugh: If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any hospital which is now under-staffed, we can certainly give it more staff. We have nurses waiting to go to the hospitals where staff is required. I will never say that we are actually satisfied that we have all the staff that is required; we have to look ahead. It is because we want to look ahead that I recently made an appeal for more trained nurses. I want to make it clear that it was not the case, as far as I knew, that any hospital was understaffed. We are endeavouring to see that the number of fully-trained nurses is ahead of requirements, while bearing in mind that it is not a wise plan to have nurses standing by month after month. We have to consider the need that we shall have to fill speedily, and to keep ready a corps of trained nurses and V.A.D.'s so that the other hospitals may be staffed as quickly as possible.

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: Would the hon. Lady extend to me the

courtesy of requesting the committee, under the chairmanship of the late Secretary for Scotland, which is going round at this very moment to see whether there are deficiencies, to find out how many of the hospitals are equipped with massage and medical electricity clinics, and in how many cases steps are taken to see that the deficiencies are made good?

Miss Horsbrugh: That is one of the points which is being laid down. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said that he thought that some hospitals had perhaps not been making full use of all that they have been given. It is important to see that the suggestions and the arrangements made by the Minister for that particular treatment in the hospitals are being made use of.
Now, we come to the vexed question of evacuation. To-day we have been dealing with an exceedingly difficult problem, the difficulties of which have perhaps come out more in this Debate than in any other Debate on evacuation that we have had. Now we seem to have got down to the main problems of the subject and really to have got away from detailed points, from the difficulties we have known and from what we went through last September. In putting aside most of the details, I want to deal with the main problems that are before us. I realise that details are important. The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) spoke of the clothes question. We know those details. The details can be got over, and they are being got over. We realised them fully in September. As I went about from one area to another, probably I saw the difficulties in the areas and had a chance of seeing them more than anyone else, because I went practically into every region and found nearly all the difficulties. Therefore, if I leave the details this evening, hon. Members will realise that we are not trying to avoid the details, but there are the main problems which have still to be solved.
Without in any way trespassing upon other Votes and keeping strictly in order, I can probably deal with most of the subjects which hon. Gentlemen have raised. The main point is that we want to see how every possible opportunity can be given to the people of this country, and above all to the children, to escape, as far as possible, the worst horrors of war. In dealing with the children we all realise


that it is not simply the body of the child; we want to see that the child, body, soul and mind, will get the best possible chance. That is the object of us all; we are all trying to reach the same thing. The difficulty is as to how we are to reach that point. Not only are we dealing with the problem of the desire of the mother, of the parents, very naturally to see that the child has the best chance possible, but, in spite of their anxiety as to how the child may fare if it goes away, we are also dealing with the problem of this small country at war.
As I listened this afternoon to the references to the various districts I realised that I had never known the map of England so well as I have known it in the last few months. To many of us in the Ministry of Health "Bradshaw" is now almost known by heart. I wonder whether hon. Members realise as well as we realise that the more we are desirous of moving people from certain districts, the more the districts into which we can move them are becoming smaller. We have heard to-day that the children should not be on the East or on the South coast. Then we come to the inland districts where, as we have been told, various industrial efforts are going on, and there are various regions which might be thought to be dangerous through the presence of the military. If you begin to exclude all areas within eight or ten miles of industrial undertakings, and every area which may possibly be marked out as a military object very little of this island will remain. We have to look as far as we can day by day to the districts which we consider to be the safest. I would make this point quite clear to all Members who have spoken. Every day, in conference with those who can speak for various Service Ministries, decisions are taken as to which particular districts are the safe stand which districts are the most dangerous still. The war is not static. It is changing, and the dangers change. Defence and industrial schemes are changing, and I am quite certain hon. Members will agree that we cannot always give reasons why particular areas are not the best and the reasons why we choose another area and move children. So we have the difficulty of the geography of the areas which may be considered and the best areas to which children should be sent.
In dealing with evacuation, we have, as most of us know, the chance of using areas not confined to this country, such as the Dominions and the United States. We have heard lately of generous offers of help from people who are willing to extend homes to children in this country, and the Minister, in conjunction with other Departments, has been considering what is the best way in which we can reply to these generous offers. Within a few days I think some scheme will be known by which it is suggested that these generous invitations will be responded to. I would like to say to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) that he need not fear that only those who can afford to go beyond this island will go. I hope very much that in a few days it will be made clear that those who would like their children to go beyond this island across the seas, to the Dominions or elsewhere, will be given the opportunity. It will not be the case that only those who can afford to send their children will be the only ones to send them. We hope to extend our reception areas far beyond the limited area of this country, but will they go? The crux of this Debate is whether children will go to Cornwall, Devon, Canada or the United States.
My right hon. Friend, in opening the Debate, gave us, I think, what is our new conception of evacuation. The war is here, and because of war we must look upon our evacuation scheme from a new point of view. My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that there may be certain areas in this country where we shall be told by those best able to advise us that large numbers of the population, not only children, should be removed. There is not the slightest doubt that when that time comes evacuation will be compulsory. But compulsion there would not be the compulsion of taking the children from their parents. If it was the case that because it was necessary, from a military or defence point of view, that a large proportion of the population should move from certain areas, I have not the slightest doubt that the country would support us in saying that that move should be compulsory. Some of those who have discussed evacuation to-day have not had in mind that this is what we might call a newer form of evacuation which has to be faced. We have to realise that in moving large parts of the


population we are making areas smaller. The boundaries of many areas which have been neutral areas or reception areas in the past may be changed. There is before us now a bigger move of the population than there has ever been in the past.
Even if that move takes place, there will be other areas, crowded and densely packed, where aerial bombardment might quite probably occur, and there may be a disaster to large numbers of the population. What are we to do? The Committee has this afternoon shown itself in a really debating mind. I have been counting the number of hon. Members who have expressed their opinion this afternoon, and I am right in saying that the majority of hon. Members, and I believe the majority of the people, still prefer an effort being made without compelling parents to give up their children. Those Members who are in favour of compulsion would like to see a scheme of orderly evacuation in order that large numbers of these children should be in safer areas. But those hon. Members who have put forward a scheme of compulsion have never said that they would impose penalties upon those who refused to go or that they were prepared to send parents to prison because they would not give up their children.
We have heard what is going to be the effect of this peculiar war situation on the children and how it is going to react upon them; what will be the effect upon them in after life. As I listened to the Debate, I wondered what will be the effect on the children who are taken against their will and against the will of their parents from their homes. What will be the effect on the children if we make it compulsory and the police call at the house and say, "This child must be taken away; it is the law of the land"—and the parents still object? The hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) expressed the feeling that is in the mind of many parents. What will be the effect on the child taken compulsorily from home? I have seen a good deal of children who have been evacuated. Of course, there are cases of shy children and homesick children, who do not want to leave their parents. Hon. Members know how much depends on the help and support of parents. I have seen mothers saying "Good-bye" to their children and

telling them that they are off to the country, keeping up heart themselves and trying to be cheerful in order to help the child. It is on these parents that the burden has rested to make the child happy in going away, and if we are not going to get even that support but a feeling against evacuation, I ask hon. Members to consider what effect that is going to have on the child.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) referred to the effect of compulsion on the reception homes. What we want to get for the children are homes where the people are ready to take them, make them part of the family, and give them all the care and attention they possibly can. It would be a very difficult task to make the children who have been taken forcibly from their homes really feel happy and at home and at ease in their surroundings if it is done under compulsion. I would not perhaps have dared to put this so much from my own point of view, if we had not had a great deal of expression already from various points of view. I might have said to the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet), as one maiden aunt to another, that it was difficult for us to express an opinion. But I have my own opinion, which I hold very strongly, on this subject, and I am glad that the decision of the Government and of my right hon. Friend has been against this country, with all its feeling for home life and parental responsibility, with all that we have done to build up the ideal of the home, taking this course, if it meant that, with everything else that is to be smashed and destroyed in this war, that ideal was to be smashed and destroyed also.
It has been suggested that there should be more propaganda and more appeals by mothers who have sent their children away, or from mothers in reception areas, to those who are still waiting and wondering what to do. My right hon. Friend is only too anxious that there should be all expressions of opinion that could help. It has been suggested that those mothers should speak on the wireless. That might be effective, but I have some doubt. I would like to see more personal contacts, more meetings of parents, and discussions among themselves. I would like to see the mothers who have decided, or those from reception


areas, talking to the parents who are yet undecided. I think a quarter of an hour's talk, face to face, would do far more than five minutes, 10 minutes, or even a quarter of an hour's talk on the wireless. It would be more personal. I believe that the very fact—although the number may be small—that the children who have been registered in London started to go into the reception areas to-day, will prove useful. If that is successful, I believe we shall find more readiness here in the London area to send the children. Every child who is happy in a reception area, every evacuation that is a success, is better propaganda than any number of words. I also wonder whether it would not be possible for some of those who are considering registering their children, to go to the various areas and to talk to the people in those areas. There is I agree a feeling of fear. There is a feeling which many mothers have expressed to me in these words: "We cannot say that in the reception area there is complete safety." Mothers have said to me, "If there is to be danger, if my child is to be hurt or merely frightened, I do not want him to be away from me. He will be more frightened with strangers." That point of view has to be considered.
Nothing would give my right hon. Friend greater satisfaction than 100 per cent. voluntary evacuation. That is our ideal, and when reception areas beyond this island are available to the people of this country, many who do not consider the reception areas here to be completely safe may be willing to send their children further a field across the seas. That we have yet to see, but as the war continues, we realise that there will be changes, not only in the minds of people, but, much more, changes in the actual effect of the war in this country. Hon. Members may say that by that time it may be too late. I cannot help feeling, however, that the people of this country will more and more, realise the danger and that as the danger comes nearer to one part of this country or to another, people all over the country will begin to feel that they ought to take advantage of the opportunity which is being offered to them. Every scheme which is put forward we shall consider most carefully and also every suggestion for getting into touch with these people. I should like to see any number of ex-

periments tried but for myself I believe there is nothing which will bring the matter home more to the people of this country than the facts which we shall probably have to face in the days ahead.
Every day for the next six days children will be leaving London. We have already changed the areas of reception, and in the last few weeks children have been moving from one part of England to another. I agree that far too many are still left in certain areas, but I would ask hon. Members not to under-estimate the number of children who are now in safer areas and those who are about to move. Of those who were registered to leave London, to-day, 80 per cent. cheerfully went off; everything, so far as we have heard to-night, has gone off well. If 80 per cent. of the whole go, we shall be pleased, although, I hope, in the next few days we shall reach 90 per cent., or even more.

Miss Cazalet: That is only 80 per cent. of one-quarter of the child population.

Miss Horsbrugh: I quite agree. It is 80 per cent. of the children who were to go to-day. I quite agree that that is only one-quarter of the school population, and we do not try to minimise it in the very least. But, if 80 per cent. of those who have registered have gone to-day, I consider that it shows that people are not drawing back and that those who have registered do realise the importance of the appeals which we have made. The hon. Member for West Fulham said that those parents who have allowed their children to stay behind could be best influenced by those parents who have allowed their children to go. If the parents of every one of those 121,000 feel that it is a success, and that they were right in their action, I am convinced that they will be able to induce another 120,000 or 240,000 or 360,000.
The Minister said that the Government's decision was not to make this method compulsory, and I believe that the majority of the people in this country will be relieved to know that. I know cases where children are being taken away from school—I know this from school attendance officers—because their parents fear that their children might be compulsorily taken from them. These are the dangers that we have to face, but I hope it will be clearer after this Debate that at any rate, the Government's pledge


up to the present is that they will not take their children without the parents' permission. Let that be clear, but at the same time we urge parents to consider the dangers and to realise the opportunity they are being given to register now. We urge them to realise the difficulties of transport and moving large numbers of the population when the worst moments of danger come. We urge them to consider that the Government are taking into account what the members of the Defence Services have told us, and taking into account all that has been learnt from other countries. We believe it would be wiser and safer if parents took the opportunity the Government are giving and continuing to give them for their children to enter those areas which are considered more safe, whether in this country or to areas even more safe farther away.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes before Ten o'Clock until Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day